2025:JHHC:26952 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1642 of 2019 Rajeev Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, At C/o Amarendra Kumar, Shyam Sadan, P.O. Kamre, P.S. Pandra (O.P) District-Ranchi …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Alka Kumari, daughter of Uma Shankar Ojha, resident of Flat No.107, Kush Apartment, Road No.2, Hawai Nagar, P.O. & P.S- Jagarnathpur, Dist-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ……. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.S Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Advocate ----------- CAV on:21st April, 2025 Pronounced on: 29.08 2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.12.2019 passed in Maintenance Case No.268 of 2019 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi by which the application filed by the petitioner dated 13.09.2019 praying inter alia to reject the application filed by the O.P. No.2 for grant of maintenance, has been rejected. 2. Heard Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumr, learned APP and Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the decree of divorce has been awarded in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.2018 passed by Sri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi against the O.P. No.2. It is submitted that O.P. 2025:JHHC:26952 2 No.2 has filed an appeal before this Court being F.A. No.393 of 2018. It is submitted that while passing the decree of divorce, the learned Court below had dissolved the marriage of the marriage of the parties under section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. Twenty (20) Lacs as a permanent alimony to the O.P. No.2 within a period of three months from the date of the decree. It is submitted that in compliance of the said judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Family Court, the petitioner had deposited a bank draft of Rs. Twenty (20) Lacs before the learned Family Court, Ranchi but the O.P. NO.2 did not accept or receive the same and as such by order dated 27.09.2018 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi kept the xerox copy of the said bank draft on record and has returned the original bank draft to the petitioner. It is submitted that since the marriage of the parties has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. Twenty (20) Lacs as a permanent alimony to the O.P. No.2, the application filed by the O.P. No.2 before the learned Court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance is not at all maintainable. It is submitted that in view of the permanent alimony having been granted to the O.P. No.2 to be paid by the petitioner, the O.P. No.2 is not entitled to receive any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 passed in Maintenance Case No.268 of 2019 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi is fit and proper and no interference is 2025:JHHC:26952 3 required. It is submitted that maintenance case cannot be rejected at this stage and even the wife has not taken the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs from the learned Court below and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 adopted the submission of learned APP and submitted that the impugned order is proper. It is submitted that the First Appeal filed by the wife has already been allowed in favour of the O.P. No.2 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No.393 of 2018 and the decree of divorce passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in O.S. No.554 of 2016 is set aside and hence there is no divorce. However, the petitioner has filed Civil Review No.36 of 2024 which is still pending and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 6. Perused the record and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It appears that the O.P. No.2 has filed Maintenance Case No.268 of 2019 under section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. However, in the said case, the petitioner has appeared and filed petition on 13.09.2019 to dismiss the maintenance case. However, the learned Court below has rejected the petition dated 13.09.2019 filed by the petitioner and for which the instant Criminal Revision Application has been filed. 8. It appears that the present Revision Application has been filed on 19.12.2019 before this High Court and instituted 22.12.2019 by the Registry. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.09.2020 the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amitav Kumar Gupta) of this Court had stayed further proceeding before the learned Court below by allowing I.A. No.664 of 2020 filed by the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:26952 4 9. It further reveals that a Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2021 had directed the office to place the matter along with record of F.A. No.393 of 2018, however, the F.A. No.393 of 2018 shall not be listed. 10. Pursuant to which, the records F.A. No.393 of 2018 was received in this case on 20.08.2021 before the Co-ordinate Bench. 11. It appears that initially the petitioner had filed O.S. No.554 of 2016 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi which was allowed on 29.08.2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi by dissolving the marriage by decree of divorce under section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs. (Twenty) 20 Lakh to the O.P. No.2 i.e. wife as Permanent Alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 12. During pendency of this case, the O.P. No.2 has appeared and filed I.A. No.6041 of 2024 on 22.06.2024 for early hearing of the case and has enclosed the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in F.A. No.393 of 2018 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by which the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had set aside the judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed in O.S. No.554 of 2016. The Hon’ble Division Bench further held that no case of desertion is made out and no case of cruelty is also made out against the O.P. No.2 by the petitioner. 13. In view of the above, it is admitted fact that for the present there is no decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner under section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 14. It appears that during course of submission, the learned counsels for both the parties admitted that Civil Review No.36 2025:JHHC:26952 5 of 2024 is still pending before the Division Bench of this Court and the same has not been disposed of till date. 15. This Court has obtained the progress from the website of Jharkhand High Court and it reveals that said Civil Review No.36 of 2024 is still pending in the Division Bench of this Court. 16. Even, it is well settled from the judgment passed in Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2020 (19) SCC 342, that a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance. 17. It has been held in the case of Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2020 (19) SCC 342, that even a wife, who has been divorced on ground of desertion, is entitled to claim maintenance and it has been held at para-5 and 7 as follows:- “Para-5:- Thereafter, in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri this Court took a similar view: (SCCP 184, para 11) 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once a decree for divorce was passed against the respondent and marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end, the mutual rights. Duties and obligations should also come to an end. He pleaded that in this situation, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain a woman with whom all relations came to an end should also be treated to have come to an end. This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman, she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife. A woman after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was once her husband continues to be 2025:JHHC:26952 6 under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her." “Para-7:- No doubt, as urged by Mr Debal Banerjee. Explanation II to Section 125 9 CrPC by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and, therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated as a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that event after divorce she is not willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of Mr Debal Banerjee.” 18. In view of the above, it is evident that O.P. No.2 has filed F.A. No.393 of 2018 which has been allowed on 20.12.2023 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No.268 of 2019 is set aside. 19. Thus, there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Application. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.1642 of 2019 is, hereby, dismissed. 20. Consequently, the office is directed to return the record of F.A. No.393 of 2018 to the section of First Appeal at once along 2025:JHHC:26952 7 with the copy of this order, which may be required to be tagged with Civil Review No.36 of 2024. 21. The interim order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Justice Amitav Kumar Gupta) of this Court stands vacated. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-