2025:JHHC:21081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 693 of 2024 Ravi Prakash, S/o Bateshwar Tanti, R/o Satkar Chowk, Near Petrol Pump, P.O.- Lalpur Bhader, P.S. Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur. (Bihar) ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Minakshi Kumari @ Khushi, W/o Ravi Prakash, D/o Jai Prakash Tanti, R/o Habibpur, Pipe Raod, P.O.-Sahibganj, P.S. Sahibganj (Twon), District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand) … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No. 09 / Dated : 30.07.2025. 1. This instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in favour of opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Original Maintenance Case No. 128 of 2022. 2. The marital status of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 is not in dispute. The order has been assailed mainly on the quantum of maintenance. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he has no permanent source of income and the maintenance has been allowed by assessing monthly income of the petitioner to be Rs.20,000/- taking into account the oral evidence on behalf of the applicant/ opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner was a Data Operator. As a matter of fact, there is no consistent evidence regarding the occupation of the petitioner and the petitioner comes from very poor family and his father is an old person and is dependent on the petitioner. 4. It is also argued that opposite party no. 2 is still living in her matrimonial home at Kahalgaon. In para 11 of the testimony of the father of opposite party no. 2, it has come that she used to commute from Kahalgaon to Sahibgnaj for pursuing the case. It is argued that the parents of opposite party no. 2 are the residents of Sahibganj and the very fact that she commutes from Kahalgaon goes to shows that she still is living in the matrimonial home from where she carries on the business of Beauty Parlour. 2025:JHHC:21081 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that Rs. 5000/- is a paltry sum which has been awarded as maintenance, as the petitioner deliberately is not taking care of opposite party no. 2. She has been subjected to cruelty regarding which criminal case under Section 498A of IPC has also been filed by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it is apparent that no documentary evidence has been brought on record to show that petitioner was having a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- per month. On the contrary it has come in evidence that opposite party no.2 was residing in her matrimonial home. There is no particular about the landed property mentioned anywhere from which it is said that the petitioner is also having agricultural income. 7. While awarding maintenance, the income and capacity of the parties needs to be considered. No game for purpose would be served if maintenance is awarded beyond the financial capacity of the opposite party. Factors to be considered have been enumerated in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 : 78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 8. Under the circumstance, in the absence of any credible evidence of income, and considering the oral evidence of the income, and also that the OP No.2 had also source of income, the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month is reduced to Rs.3000/- per month. 9. With this modification in the maintenance, the criminal revision stands disposed of. Pending I.A., is any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -