Jharkhand High Court
None 1398 of 2005 on 25 September 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1398 of 2005
----
Rabbul Sheikh.
...Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sushma Bibi.
3. Parvina Begam. …..Opposite Parties
----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Jha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
-----
03/1.11.2018
Heard the parties.
This application is directed against the order dated 26.9.2005, passed by the learned 1[st] Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Cr. Revision No. 68 of 2004, by which the order dated 25.9.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] class, Rahmahal in Cr. Misc. No. 14 of 2001 allowing the application preferred by the O.P. No. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been affirmed.
It appears that O.P No. 2 was married with the petitioner and out of the said wedlock, a minor daughter was born. It has been alleged that after the marriage, there was a demand of Rs.5,000/- as dowry and the O.P. No. 2 on account of non fulfilment of the said demand, was subjected to torture. An application was preferred under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself as well as her daughter, which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] class, Rajmahal by order dated 25.9.2004 and which was sustained in Cr. Revision No. 68 of 2004. There appears to be no dispute with respect to the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. It further appears that petitioner has neglected to maintain O.P. No. 2 and the O.P. No. 2 does not have any source to sustain herself. On such consideration, an amount of Rs.400/- in total was granted in fovour of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.
There being no reasons to conclude with the impugned order dated 26.9.2005, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-