2025:JHHC:12993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1118 of 2017 …. Banshi Ram, Son of Late Lato Ram, Resident of Village- Chiglawar, PO- Bekobar, PS + District- Koderma …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Most. Radha Devi, wife of Late Jiwlal Kumar Das and Daughter of Bhola Ram, presently residing at Village- Kajara, PO + PS- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra A.P.P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Ms. Lina Shakti, Advocate …… C.A.V. on 09.04.2025 Pronounced on 29.04.2025 This Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh by which then learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 15.09.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 40 of 2014 corresponding to T. R. No. 663 of 2016 passed by Miss Saudamini Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh by which the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner Bansi Ram (i.e. father-in- law) to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi (i.e. Daughter In-law) for her living expenses under Section 20 (d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The fact of this case, in brief, is that Most. Radha Devi 2025:JHHC:12993 -2- (i.e. OP No. 2), who is the wife of Late Jiwlal Kumar Das had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her father in-law, mother in-law and two brother in-laws and she had prayed for passing an order under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 after the death of her husband in the year 2010 because she was being subjected to mental and physical torture in connection with demand of dowry amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs). However, when the demand was not fulfilled her in-laws removed her along with her three daughters from the matrimonial house and since then she is residing in her parents’ house. 3. The petitioner (i.e. the father-in-law) has filed show cause by stating that the petition of Radha Devi was not maintainable. Jivlal Ram husband of the opposite party no. 2 had died on 16.11.2010 in road accident, thereafter they had provided subsistence to the opposite party no. 2 and her children. She also received Insurance Amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- after the death of her husband and she worked as Anganbadi Sewika. It is further pointed out that she wanted to remarry with Raju Das but she was persuaded not to marry with him. Thereafter, she left her sasural on 01.03.2013 and went to her maike. She filed a case Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the opposite parties on 21.03.2013. Then the petitioner Banshi Ram sent a notice to the father of Radha Devi and asked to send Radha Devi and her children at Chiglawar, Koderma. It is also stated that Radha Devi wanted to remarry and she misbehaved with them. Therefore, reliefs claimed by her is not maintainable. Therefore, application 2025:JHHC:12993 -3- may be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that application filed by the O.P. No. 2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as DV Act 2005) is also not maintainable before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court could not consider the relevant facts available on record while passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the father in-law is surviving on his own pension and he has to support and care his half paralysed wife as well as his personal medical expenses, but the same have not been considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has left her matrimonial house out of her own choice and not enforced by the in-laws, and these facts have not been considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has received substantial sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) of Insurance of her late husband and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) from this petitioner in the name of her daughter, and it has not been considered by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 left the job of Aanganbari Sevika because of insult by the village panches due to her misdeeds and not by the in-laws and the same was also not considered by the learned Appellate Court. It is submitted that there is no coparcenary property left by the husband of the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that he has 2025:JHHC:12993 -4- filed supplementary affidavit on 25.11.2021 by stating that the petitioner, who is the father in-law of the opposite party no. 2, i.e. Most. Radha Devi, is a retired Railway Employee and getting a meagre pension. It is submitted that the petitioner is son of Late Lato Chamar who had ancestral property of 24 decimal of land under Khata No. 226, Plot Nos. 4359 and 4346. Late Lato Chamar had seven sons including the petitioner and after demise of Late Lato Chamar each of the petitioner and his brothers have got 3.47 decimal of ancestral land. The petitioner Banshi Ram has four sons namely Rajkishor Das, Sudhir Das, Jivlal Das (deceased) and Ramchandra Das. However, Jivlal Das died in road accident leaving behind his widow O. P. No. 2, Radha Devi and her daughters. Thus, it is clear that from the ancestral proper Banshi Ram each of the four sons has a share of 3.47/4=0.085 decimal of ancestral land bearing Khata No. 225, Plot Nos. 4359 and 4346. It is submitted that the aforementioned land was purchased through registered sale deed by the petitioner’s father Lato Chamar jointly with Nanku Chamar and Amrit Chamar in the year 1954 and photocopy of the registered sale deed dated 12.02.1954 has been enclosed as Annexure- A to the supplementary affidavit dated 25.11.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner has no other inherited coparcenary property in his possession apart from the aforementioned property. It is submitted that the petitioner has a residential house constructed at the village Chinglabar by his self earned property. It is submitted that the four sons of the petitioner being adult were living separately with their respective families. It is submitted that the petitioner is surviving on his pension received from the Railways and looking after himself and his wife, who is leading a paralyzed life on bed. It is submitted that the petitioner himself 2025:JHHC:12993 -5- is a serious heart patient surviving with a pacemaker. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kishore Mishra Versus Smt. Meena Mishra reported in AIR 1995 All 70 and as such, the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable against the father in-law and mother in- law and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below by passing the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that the petitioner has fully neglected the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi and her three daughters and forced them to live out of her matrimonial homes. It is submitted that the witnesses of opposite party no. 2 have fully supported the case and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has thoroughly neglected the opposite party no. 2 Radha Devi and her three children and as such, the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and order in favour of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi and her 2025:JHHC:12993 -6- three children. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi is the daughter in-law of the petitioner- Banshi Ram, who is having huge ancestral property in ancestral village and is getting pension. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has also been passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi by the learned Court below. It is submitted that judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kishore Mishra Versus Smt. Meena Mishra reported in AIR 1995 All 70 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below by passing the impugned judgments and order and as such, impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and as such, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It transpires from the records that the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi had filed Misc. Case No. 40 of 2014 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005, under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act, 2005 on 06.09.2014 by stating therein that the petitioner and others had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from her and threatened to kill her and she was also assaulted and she was ousted from her matrimonial home. It is also stated that she has also filed a case bearing Barhi P.S. Case No. 90 of 2013 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others. 10. It further transpires that the petitioner had appeared before the learned Court below and filed his show cause and refuted the allegation of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi. In the meantime, Child Development Project Officer, Barhi vide 2025:JHHC:12993 -7- letter no. 124 dated 10.04.2025 informed the learned Court below that the matrimonial home of Most. Radha Devi is situated in Koderma district and it is beyond the jurisdiction of Child Development Project Officer, Barhi and as such statement of the in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 could not be recorded as they are residing in Koderma district. 11. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 had got examined two (02) witnesses in support of her case, who are as follows:- (i) C.W.1- Radha Devi i.e complainant herself and (ii) C.W.-2, Bhola Ram i.e. the father of the complainant. 12. However, opposite party no. 2 had not got marked any documents as Exhibits in support of her case. 13. On the other hand, the petitioner has examined five (5) witnesses in support of his case, who are as follows:- (i) R.W.-1, Banshi Ram i.e. the petitioner himself, (ii) R.W.-2, Surendra Yadav, (Brother-in-law of the O. P. No. 2), (iii) R. W.-3, Sudhir Kumar Das (Brother-in-law of the O. P. No.2), (iv) R. W.-4, Ghanoli Devi, i.e. Niece of the petitioner and (v) R. W.-5, Jagi Das i.e. the Villager. 14. Thereafter the learned Trial Court had framed following issues:- (i) Issue No. 1 :- Whether the present petition is maintainable ? (ii) Issue No. 2 :- Whether the applicant complainant was subjected to domestic violence ? (iii) Issue No. 3 :- Whether the applicant is entitled to protection order under Section 18 ? (iv) Issue No. 4 :– Whether the applicant is entitled to any relief under Section 19 ? 2025:JHHC:12993 -8- (v) Issue No. 5 :- Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation under Section 20 ? (vi) Issue No. 6 :- Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation under Section 22 ? 15. Thereafter, learned Trial Court below i.e. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag has decided the Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 by holding that Petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable and the complainant –opposite party no. 2 was subjected to the domestic violence. However, learned Trial Court below has decided the Issue No. 3, Issue No. 4 and Issue No. 6 against the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi, but in favour of the petitioner. 16. However, learned Court below has further held and decided the Issue No. 5 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 by observing that the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi is entitled to compensation under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as monthly maintenance amount under Section 20 (d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 17. Learned Appellate Court has affirmed the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and hence, this Criminal Revision has been filed. 18. It appears that the learned Trial Court below and learned Appellate Court below, after meticulously appreciating the evidence of both the sides, have observed that the petitioner- Banshi Ram is residing separately from other children, but the petitioner has stated in his show cause that he has to maintain his long family. Learned Appellate Court below has also observed 2025:JHHC:12993 -9- that the father in-law i.e. Banshi Ram of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi is holding ancestral property in which deceased son Jivlal Ram was also having the share. The learned Appellate Court has further observed that the children of Banshi Ram are residing separately and Bansi Ram i.e. the revisionist petitioner has responsibility to maintain his widow daughter in-law and her children. 19. This Court finds that learned Court below rightly appreciated the evidence available on the record that Radha Devi is entitled for monetary relief from her father in-law, who is a pension holder and resides separately from his children. 20. This is a case of concurrent finding of facts, however this court in order to arrive at proper conclusion is deciding the case in merits. 21. From perusal of the evidence of C.W.1- Radha Devi i.e complainant herself -the opposite party no. 2, it would appear that she was ousted from her matrimonial home due to behaviour of his brother in-law, Sudhir Kumar Das and her father in-law, Bansi Ram i.e. the petitioner, but due to her affair, she was forced to leave the work of Aaganbari Sevika and to live at her parental home with her children. She has alleged that her Bhaisur i.e. Sudhir Kumar Das has performed 2nd marriage after the death of his wife and he desires that his wife will work as Aaganbari Sevika where the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi was working. She also alleged that she was alleged to have love affairs with one Raju Das and alleged to have desired to perform 2nd marriage with Raju Das. During cross-examination, she admitted that upon death of her husband, she was given job of Aaganbari Sevika by the villagers and she was helped by Mukhia- Kanti Prasad Yadav and 2025:JHHC:12993 -10- Sarpanch-Vasudev Yadav and her in-laws members have no role but this appears to be exaggerated version of her evidence. She also stated that initially she was paid Rs. 2,200/- per month and her last payment was Rs. 3,500/- per month. She denied that no panchayati was taken place with regard to her affairs with one Raju Das. She denied that panchyati was held by Sudhir Kumar Das as first party in one hand and Dhaneshwar Ram father of Raju Ram as the second party on the other hand, it was presided by one Vijay Kumar Singh in the presence of Jitendra Das, Golid Das, Kishore Yadav, Arjun Yada, Sanjay Kumar Das, Damodar Kumar Das etc. and for which a panchayati paper was prepared that Raju Das, who used to take her at the working place and there was physical relationship with him and she was advised not to make illicit relationship in future with him. She also denied that on 08.12.2011 her father in-law had executed FD of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of her three minor daughters and in which her name was given as nominee. She could not say with regard to Khata Number and Plot Number of the house of his father in-law. Thus, her evidence reveals that her character was questioned before the villagers. 22. So far as the evidence of C.W.-2, Bhola Ram i.e. the father of the complainant is concerned, he has supported the case of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi i.e. her daughter. During cross-examination, he stated that marriage with his daughter was performed with Jiwlal Kumar Das in the year 2003, who died in road accident in November, 2010. He denied illicit relationship of her daughter. He also stated that his daughter Radha Devi worked as Aaganbari Sevika since two and half years i.e. 2- 2 ½ years. He also stated that his daughter had 2025:JHHC:12993 -11- instituted the case of dowry and torture against her in-laws members including Raju Das and also one Dhaneshwar Das and said Dhaneshwar Das is the brother of his Samdhi. He also admitted that Banshi Ram has retired 6-7 years ago from post of Railway Station Master. Thus CW 2 is a formal witness. 23. So far as the evidence of the petitioner is concerned, R.W-1 is the petitioner- Banshi Ram himself, who has denied the allegation levelled by the opposite party no. 2 against him and stated that a room was given to the O.P. No. 2 for her maintenance. However, his daughter in-law has got illicit relationship with Raj Kumar Das Son of Dhaneshwar Das and she wanted to marry with him for which a panchayati was convened. However, due to act of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi, his prestige was affected. 24. R.W.-2, Surendra Yadav, who also supported the case of the petitioner, Bansi Ram and has stated that the O.P. No.2 wanted to marry with Raju Kumar Das, who was willing to keep her three daughter and hence, the opposite party no. 2 started living in her Naihar and has falsely implicated the petitioner and his family members. However, R.W.-2, Surendra Yadav is a formal witness and has questioned her character. 25. R. W.-3 is Sudhir Kumar Das, who is the brother in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and son of the petitioner and has stated during his evidence that the opposite party no. 2 while working as Aaganbari Sewika started ill behaving with him and his family members and due to his behaviour, all his family members were perplexed. In the meantime, there was rumour in the village that the opposite party no. 2 wanted to marry with 2025:JHHC:12993 -12- Raju Kumar Das son of Dhaneshwar Das secretly and for which he forbade, but the opposite party no. 2 in order to commit suicide fell into well by her own, but she was saved by the villagers and she was also advised to perform 2nd marriage with Raju Kumar Das, but the opposite party no. 2 with her daughters came to her Naihar. During cross-examination, he has admitted that his first wife has died and he has performed 2nd marriage in the year 2013. Thus, the evidence of R.W.-3, Sudhir Kumar Das himself states that he wanted to perform marriage of the O.P. No. 2 with Raju Kumar Das, but she refused to marry with Raju Kumar Das. 26. R. W.-4, Ghanoli Devi has also stated that the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi wanted to marry with Raju Kumar Das and for which a panchayti was held and she has falsely institute a case against her father in-law. During cross- examination, she admitted that Radha Devi had fell into the well. He also admitted that Sudhir Kumar Das has performed 2nd marriage after the death of his 1st wife. 27. R.W.- 5, Jagi Das has the same fact as stated by the R.W.-4 Ghanoli Devi. 28. Thus the evidence of petitioner side reveals that O. P. No. 2 was being persuaded to marry with one Raju Das son of Dhaneshwar Das so that O.P. No. 2 may leave the job of Anganbari Sevika for the wife of Sudhir Kumar Das R.W. 3. 29. This is a case of grant maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- only. This Court fully concurs with the view of the learned Trial Court below as well as Learned Appellate Court. 30. Section 20 of the D. V. Act reads as follow :- 2025:JHHC:12993 -13- “Section 20. Monetary reliefs:- (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,(a)the loss of earnings;(b)the medical expenses;(c)the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and(d)the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force. (2)The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. (3)The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. (4)The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5)The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1). (6)Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may 2025:JHHC:12993 -14- be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.” 31. It further appears that till date the O. P. No. 2 has not married with said Raju Das son of Dhaneshwar Das. 32. It also appears that the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi has not challenged the findings given against her i.e. the Issue No. 3, Issue No. 4 and Issue No. 6, which have been decided in favour of the petitioner and only maintenance claim has been allow. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- each to three daughters of the opposite party no. 2, Radha Devi from his own Bank Account or income because the opposite Party no. 2 has given Rs. 5,00,000/- as arising out of MACT Case No. on the death of her husband in road accident in the year 2010. 33. This is a case of grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month only. 34. The case of the opposite party no. 2 is also substantiated from the evidence of R.W.-3, Sudhir Kumar Das, who himself stated that he has suggested to the opposite party no. 2 to marry with Raju Das, but she refused and this shows that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to torture and even the character was maligned due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. There is no doubt that the petitioner is old aged person i.e. 78 years and maintaining his wife, who is said to be in paralyzed condition, but he has also to maintain his widow daughter in-law and her three children. 35. In view of discussion made hereinabove, this Court fully concurs with the view of the learned Appellate Court as well the learned Trial Court below. 36. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed in 2025:JHHC:12993 -15- Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and the order dated 15.09.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 40 of 2014 corresponding to T. R. No. 663 of 2016 by Miss Saudamini Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh are affirmed. 37. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2017 is dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/