2025:JHHC:20328 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.689 of 2025 ----- Abhinav Sinha, aged about 34 years, son of Sachidanand Sinha, resident of Chaprasi Tola, Godda Behind Agrasen Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Godda Town, Sub-Division and District-Godda (Jharkhand) .......... Petitioner(s). -Versus- Smt. Apoorva, aged about 27 years, wife of Sri Abhinav Sinha, daughter of Ratneshwar Prasad, resident of Chaprasi Tola, Godda Behind Agrasen Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Godda Town, sub-division and District- Godda (Jharkhand). Presently residing at her father’s house at Ankitalay Rose Villa Campus, Bompas Town, P.O. & P.S. Sub-Division & District-Deoghar. . ........ Opp. Party. ----- CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : ----- 02/Dated: 24.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By invoking a criminal jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.03.2025, passed in Original Maintenance Case No.64 of 2024, whereby maintenance has been fixed to the tune of Rs.23,000/- in favour of the wife. 3. From the perusal of the order, I find that there is no illegality and there is no impropriety in the judgment as Court has considered all the aspects. The amount cannot be said to be exorbitant, considering the status of this petitioner as also the fact that he is working in a bank. 4. After hearing the parties, I find that the marriage between the parties is not denied. Further, there is factual finding arrived at by the Court that the petitioner has neglected the wife. Once these two facts have been established, the petitioner is bound to pay maintenance to the wife. 5. The amount which has been fixed is Rs.23,000/- per month. In these types of cases Rs.23,000/- is reasonable 2025:JHHC:20328 Page | 2 amount. This amount cannot be said to be exorbitant considering the income and socio-economical condition of the petitioner. The income of the petitioner as per evidence is Rs.70,000/-. Thus, I find no illegality committed by the Court concerned, either in fixing the quantum or on the merit of this case. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal revision application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep/Cp3