2025:JHHC:27210 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.586 of 2024 Tanmoy Kumar Kundu, aged about 52 Years, son of Nirmal Kumar Kundu, Resident of Retirement Colony, Tungri Tola, Chhota Muri, P.O. & P.S.- Silli, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Binti Kumari W/o Tanmoy Kumar Kundu & D/o Late Vijay Kumar Choudhary 3. Saaketh Kumar, aged about 03 years, S/o Tanmoy Kumar Kundu O.P. No.3 is a minor represented through his mother and Natural Guardian namely, Binti Kumari O.P. Nos.2 and 3 are residents of Village- Ritudih (Auto Stand), P.O.- Siwandih, P.S.- Marafari, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP For the O.P. No.2&3 : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate ------ 9/09.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No.2 & 3. 2. This Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Maintenance Case No.189 of 2019 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the O.P. No.2 and 3, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) per month for maintenance to O.P. No.2, who is the wife and Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) per month for maintenance to O.P. No.3, who is the son, i.e. total amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) w.e.f. from 16.07.2019, i.e. the date of filing of the case and the direction has been issued to pay maintenance for each month by 2025:JHHC:27210 2 the 10th day of each succeeding English Calendar Month to the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 either by way of cash or cheque. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and even the petitioner is not the biological father of the son. He submits, in view of that, the learned Court has erred in passing the said order. 4. He further submits that in the light of sub-Section 5 of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., three conditions are there to show that the wife is not entitled for maintenance. He submits that in view of the evidence on record, it has been proved that the wife is living in adultery. In view of that, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the marriage is admitted between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order and the maintenance amount is meagre. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is working as Accountant in Sri Sai Enterprises at Muri, Ranchi. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 submits that the learned Court appreciating all the evidences, oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not able to prove the case as argued and in view of that the learned Court has passed the said order. There is no illegality in the said order. 7. In view of the above and looking into the contents of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Court has found that 2025:JHHC:27210 3 petitioner is not able to prove his case either oral or through documentary evidence and has found that the petitioner not able to prove that he is not the biological father of the son. Learned court has found that even the photographs produced by the wife of petitioner, wife and the son are shown together and even such pleading was taken by the petitioner, the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the same, which has not been proved by the petitioner. It has come on record that the petitioner is working in as Accountant in a company namely Sri Sai Enterprises. It has also been considered by the learned Court that petitioner is BA, LLB. He is Accountant, working in M/s. Sai Enterprises at Muri, Silli, Ranchi, getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. He is owner and possesses commercial vehicles and earn Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- per month, Rs.20,000/- per month from cloth business, Rs.10,000/- per month from landed property and Rs.10,000/- per month from house rent. However, it has been denied by the petitioner that he is doing private job and gets Rs.200/-, if work done. This contention was not proved by the petitioner by any cogent evidence. In view of the above, the learned Court has passed the maintenance allowance to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) per month for maintenance of O.P. No.2, who is the wife and Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) per month for maintenance of O.P. No.3, who is the son, i.e. total amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand). 8. In view of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it provides that any person who has sufficient means to maintain himself cannot deny the maintenance to the wife, children and parents if they are not able to 2025:JHHC:27210 4 maintain themselves. 9. In view of the above facts and discussions made in the impugned order and further it is admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of O.P. No.2-wife and the petitioner has not proved by leading any evidence that he is not the father of the child, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 10. As such, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar