25/05.12.2022

1. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh appearing in person on behalf of the petitioner in the criminal revision and the appellant in criminal appeal.

2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing as Amicus on behalf of both the private respondents in both the cases.

3. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Cr. Appeal.

4. Heard Ms. Sushma Devi, appearing in person for the opposite parties/private respondents.

5. Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2021 has been filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2020 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 142/2007 under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed by the private opposite parties has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party claimed to be the wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party claiming to be the son with a further direction to pay the arrears of maintenance within a period of 4 months from the date of the passing of the judgment.

6. So far as the Criminal Appeal is concerned, the same has been filed challenging the order dated 06.04.2016, whereby the petition dated 19.03.2016 filed on behalf of the present appellant (opposite party before the learned court below) for initiating a proceeding under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. alleging filing of forged and fabricated documents before the learned court below, has been rejected.

Background of the case:-

7. Both the cases arise out of Original Maintenance Case No. 142/2007 and therefore they have been tagged and have been heard together.

8. A petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by Sushma Devi against the petitioner for grant of maintenance for herself @ Rs. 2,000/- per month and @ Rs. 1,500/- per month for her son who was the co-applicant before the learned court below. The case was filed on 21.11.2007.

9. Sushma Devi claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and claimed that the marriage was solemnized on 16.08.2003 in Kali Mandir situated at Toliganj, Kolkata in presence of parties and friends under Hindu Customary rites and the said marriage was registered in the office of Shyamal Ghosh, Daftidar, Registrar Hindu Marriage, North Station Road, Agrapara, Kolkata and there were three witnesses to the marriage. The application for registration was submitted with signature of both the parties in the said office on 06.09.2003.

10. After marriage, they started living as husband and wife and were blessed with a son, Prateek Kumar. She had lived in her in-laws house for one and a half year and thereafter there was a demand of dowry and she was subjected to physical and mental torture and in order to save her life, she left her matrimonial home in the month of July, 2005 and thereafter she lived at her father9s house up to two years and four months. She had also lodged one case being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 209/2004 on 28.04.2004 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereafter petitioner started contacting her for withdrawal of the case and ultimately the petitioner consoled her by giving in writing to the police authority that in case applicant withdrew the case he will not solemnize second marriage. It was also mentioned that undertaking was given voluntarily and without pressure.

11. Thereafter the case was finalized and the police submitted the final form and after that the present petitioner again threatened her for dowry and solemnization of second marriage for which another case being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 494 was lodged. The charge-sheet was submitted and the said criminal case is pending. Further case of Sushma Devi was that she had also given one motorcycle, chain and finger ring etc. and also gave money for construction of boundary and gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner and his father who demanded money for constructio