Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10262 (JHR)

SARINA BIBI ALIAS SERINA BIBI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./385/2024 · 2025-09-10

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 Cr. Revision No.385 of 2024 2025:JHHC:27427 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Revision No.385 of 2024 ---- 1.Sarina Bibi @ Serina Bibi aged about 30 years wife of Yusuf Ali, daughter of Eklas Sheikh 2.Yakub Ahmed aged about 12 years son of Yusuf Ali 3.Marufa Khatun, aged about 11 years daughter of Yusuf Ali, Nos.2 and 3 are minor represented through their mother i.e. petitioner no.1. All are resident of Village Housenagar, PO Tinpakuria, PS Shamserganj, Dist. Murshidabad (WB) presently residing at Village Jhikarhati, PO and PS Pakur (M), Dist. Pakur, Jharkhand …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Yusuf Ali, son of Allauddin Sk., resident of Village Housenagar, PO Tinpakuria, PS Shamserganj, District Murshidabad (WB).... Opp.Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State :- Mrs Ruby Pandey, Advocate ---- 6/10.09.2025 I.A. No.10953 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 244 days in preferring the instant revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners was informed late about the said order of maintenance passed by the learned court and in that view the said delay has occurred. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the instant criminal revision petition and there is no sufficient explanation made for such delay. 4. In view of above and considering the submission made in the I.A and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court finds that sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning such delay occurred in preferring the instant petition. Accordingly, the delay of 244 days occurred in preferring the instant criminal revision petition is condoned. The instant I.A stands allowed and disposed of. 5. The instant Criminal Revision petition has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in Original Maintenance Case No.218 of 2022 vide order dated 2 Cr. Revision No.385 of 2024 17.04.2023, whereby the learned court has been pleased to direct to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as well as Rs.1200/- each per month to the petitioner no.1/wife and petitioner no.2 and 3/children, respectively. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned has erred in granting the maintenance to the tune of Rs.5400/- per month only to the petitioners who happened to be wife and children of the O.P.No.2 respectively. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that in the internal page no.12 the learned court has assessed the income and has passed the order and came to the conclusion that Rs.14000/- was the earning of O.P.No.2 and in view of that, the learned court has granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month as well as Rs.1200/- each per month to the petitioner no.1/wife and petitioner no.2 and 3/children, respectively. 8. It appears from the impugned order that no documentary evidence has been brought on record before the learned court to prove the income of the O.P.No.2. Learned court has found that the petitioner is doing the job of labour supply to different construction sites and in view of that the learned court has assessed that the petitioner would have been earning Rs.14,000/- per month and in that view of the matter, the learned court has allowed the maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month as well as Rs.1200/- each per month to the petitioner no.1/wife and petitioner no.2 and 3/children, respectively. If the O.P.No.2 is doing such work, prima facie, it appears that the learned court has rightly assessed the income of the O.P.No.2 to the tune of Rs.14,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence brought on the record by the petitioner. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. No case of enhancement is made out. Hence, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. 9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,