2025:JHHC:21290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 629 of 2025 ------ Jashwant Saw, S/o Late Dhiran Saw, R/o Sector-4/E, Quarter No.-2137, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-4, District- Bokaro, Bokaro Steel City. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Meena Devi @Meena Kumari, W/o Jashwant Saw, D/o Jaldhar Mahto, R/o Village Bada Pandeydih, P.O. Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, district Dhanbad. 3. Chaitanya Kumar, S/o Jashwant Saw, Minor and represented by his mother. Both opp. Party No. 2 and 3 Permanent residents of village- Tukadih, P.S & P.O- Jaridih, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand. At present residents of village- Bara Pandeydih, P.O- Khanudih, P.S-Baghmara, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr.Bakshi Vibha, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. ---- 04/ 29.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. By filing this Criminal Revision Application under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 19.02.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 300 of 2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby the Court granted monetary maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife of petitioner Meena Devi @ Meena Kumari and Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of their minor Son Chaitanya Kumar i.e., total amounting to Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) per month, to be paid by the 10th day of each succeeding English calendar month either by way of Cash or Cheque/ D.D./ online transaction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of grant of monetary maintenance of Rs.11000/- to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 is wrong and unjustified. He further submits that the opposite party No. 2 is a graduate lady and is able to earn Rs.10,000–15,000/- by giving tuition to children and it is sufficient to maintain herself. Furthermore, the petitioner is also bound to provide maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to his mother in cash. He sumbits that the petitioner’s salary was Rs.24,707/- at the time of filing of the case. Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner will be only left with Rs.4000/- after deduction of both the maintenance amount which is not enough for his survival. 2025:JHHC:21290 4. Learned counsel representing the state submits that the wife of the petitioner was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by the petitioner and his family with regard to demand for dowry. He further contends that the wife of the petitioner and her son were sent back to her parental home. He further submits that she has no source of income and is living with her parents. He submits that the petitioner is a permanent employee of Bokaro Steel Limited and drawing salary of more than Rs.70,000/- per month and apart from that he has also income from agricultural sources. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the plea that the petitioner’s salary is insufficient to maintain both his mother and his wife and child is misleading. From the impugned order I find that it has been observed by the learned Judge that the petitioner is getting more deduction to show his net income less, after filing of the case so that he may not have to pay higher amount of maintenance. From the impugned order I find that learned Judge has considered all the aspects completely and elaborately. The fact that the petitioner is the husband of the applicant-opposite party is not denied. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the petitioner being husband is neglecting and not maintaining his wife. Once a finding of fact has been arrived at that she is not being maintained, the applicant- opposite party was entitled to get maintenance. It is also not a case of the petitioner that the applicant-opposite party is earning to maintain herself. The petitioner herein is an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking. The Court has found his income to be Rs.70,000/- per month. The maintenance amount awarded is Rs.11,000/-. The said amount cannot be said to be exorbitant. This Court is not sitting in an appellate jurisdiction and it is revisional jurisdiction. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the Family Court, inasmuch as the same has been passed by the Court considering all the aspects and evidence available on record. 6. Thus, there being no merit in this Criminal Revision Application, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. This Criminal Revision Application is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03