Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 138 of 2010 With I.A. No. 1163 of 2017 Bipin Kumar Jha ...… Applicant/ Appellant Versus Meena Jha ...… Opp. Party/Respondent With Cr. Rev. No. 943 of 2013 Meena Jha ...… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. ...… Opp. Parties/Respondents With Cr. Rev. No. 838 of 2013 Bipin Kumar Jha ...… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. ...… Opp. Parties/Respondents With Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009 Bipin Kumar Jha ...… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. ...… Opp. Parties/Respondents -------- CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK ------ For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate ------ Order No.16 dated 8.2.2017 F.A. No. 138 of 2010 and I.A. No. 1163 of 2017 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, who are also the parties in the connected Criminal Revisions.
2. The appellant Bipin Kumar Jha is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 26.05.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa, in Matrimonial Suit No. 21 of 2006, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion by the respondent, has been dismissed by the Court below, finding that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata, as both the grounds had been decided between the parties in the earlier round of litigation up to the High Court.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, efforts for conciliation between the parties were made, but the same failed. The parties are highly in litigating terms and admittedly, both the parties are living separately since more than twenty years. The record shows that all efforts of reconciliation between the parties, either at the level of Court below, or by this Court, have only failed. 2 4. It was submitted by the learned counsels for both the sides on the last occasion on 12.01.2017, that ultimately the parties have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court and they agreed to settle all their disputes and to finally separate themselves from each other, severing all relationships, on payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- as one time permanent alimony and litigation cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, i.e., in total Rs. 27,00,000/- to the respondent wife by the appellant husband. It was also agreed upon, that upon such severing of the relationship between the parties, the other criminal cases pending between them shall also come to an end.
5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsels for both the sides, the matter was adjourned for today, enabling learned counsels for both the parties to file joint compromise petition in the aforesaid terms. Pursuant thereto, a joint compromise petition has been filed in I.A. No. 1163 of 2017, in which the affidavit is sworn by both the parties, reiterating the aforesaid terms. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, two bank drafts drawn upon S.B.I. bearing Nos.731734 and 718423 for the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- respectively, totaling Rs. 27,00,000/-, have been handed over to the respondent by the appellant in the Court, which the respondent has accepted and she has also acknowledged the same in the order-sheet of this Court. Since, as agreed upon by both the parties, the amount of permanent alimony and the cost of litigation have been paid by the appellant to the respondent in the Court, the marriage between the parties, i.e., Bipin Kumar Jha and Meena Jha, is hereby, dissolved by a decree of divorce.
6. Let the decree be prepared accordingly, with the joint compromise petition in I.A. No. 1163 of 2017, forming part of the decree.
7. This appeal accordingly, stands disposed of in the terms of joint compromise petition filed in I.A. No. 1163 of 2017. The interlocutory application I.A. No. 1163 of 2017 also stands disposed of. Cr. Rev. No. 943 of 2013 and Cr. Rev. No. 838 of 2013 1. We are informed that the appellant was making payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and the respondent had filed Cri. Misc. No. 12 of 2009 for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month by order dated 15.06.2013 passed by the Family Court, Bokaro, in the said case. Against the said order, both the parties have filed Criminal Revisions in this Court. The husband has challenged the enhancement of the amount in Cri. Rev. No. 838 of 2013 (Bipin Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.), and the wife has filed Cri Rev. No. 943 of 2013 (Meena Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.), for further enhancement of the maintenance amount.
2. Since, as agreed upon between the parties, the amount of permanent one time alimony has been paid to the respondent, the appellant is hereby, absolved from the responsibilities of the making the payment of any monthly maintenance to the respondent henceforth, and accordingly, in view of the agreement reached between the parties, the order dated 15.06.2013 in Cri. Misc. No. 12 of 2009, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, is hereby, set aside. 3 3. Since the appellant is absolved from the responsibilities of making payment of any monthly maintenance to the respondent henceforth, there shall be no deduction of the amount of monthly maintenance from the salary of the appellant from the month of February, 2017.
4. Both these Criminal Revisions stand disposed of with the directions as above. Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009 1. This Criminal Revision pending between the parties as the appellant husband was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in a criminal case filed by respondent wife, by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned SDJM, Bokaro, in G.R. Case No. 99 of 1996 / Tr. No. 06 of 2007. The said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence were maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Bokaro, by Judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed in Cri. Appeal No. 97 of 2007 / Cri. Appeal No. 115 of 2007, against which this Cri. Revision No. 887 of 2009 has been filed by the husband, which is pending in this Court.
2. Since, this criminal case arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties which has been amicably settled by them, severing all their relationships, and the amount of permanent one time alimony and the cost of litigation have also been paid by the husband to the wife in the Court, we are of the considered view that for securing the ends of justice, this criminal case also must come an end.
3. Even though the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable in nature, taking a cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC303 we, in exercise of the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in order to secure the ends of justice, set aside the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned SDJM, Bokaro, in G.R. Case No. 99 of 1996 / Tr. No. 06 of 2007, as also the Judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2007 / Cri. Appeal No. 115 of 2007, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Bokaro. Consequently, the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009 is acquitted of the charge and is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.
4. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009 also stands disposed of. (H. C. Mishra, J.) (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/punit