2025:JHHC:21201 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.646 of 2025 ----- Manohar Paswan, s/o late Lakhan Paswan, r/o village Dourma, PO and PS Bihra, District Saharsa, Bihar … Petitioner(s). Versus Murti Devi, w/o Manohar Paswan, d/o Jamun Roy, r/o village+PO+PS Narayanpur, District Jamtara … Opposite Party(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. P. Choudhary, Advocate …...... 02 /31.07.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in this revision application has challenged the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara in Original Maintenance Case No. 102 of 2023 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- per month to his wife in a petition under section 125 Cr.PC . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order submits that the claimant though is the wife of the petitioner but earlier was married to one Jagarnath Singh and she has a child out of the said wedlock. Suppressing the aforesaid fact and without taking divorce she had married with this petitioner. Thus the marriage of the claimant with this petitioner is nullity. Since the marriage is null and void, the claimant cannot claim maintenance. He further submits that this petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife for which a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed. On this ground he challenges the order passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 102 of 2023 by filing this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. The claimant who is opposite party in this revision petition filed an application under section 125 Cr.PC claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- per month. It is her case that this petitioner is her husband and he 2025:JHHC:21201 2 has tortured her and neglected her and has not taken care. Thus she needs maintenance which the petitioner is liable to pay. 5. The petitioner appeared before the Family Judge and filed his statement he has taken a plea that the claimant was earlier married and suppressing the aforesaid fact she get married with this petitioner, thus the marriage is nullity. He also stated that the claimant was not behaving properly and rather had made some videos wearing the uniform of this petitioner for which panchayati was held and the claimant had given an undertaking that she will not do this again but for reasons best known the claimant has left the house of the petitioner on her own will. It is stated that it is not the case that this petitioner has ousted her. 6. Before the Principal Judge, Family Court both the parties led evidence. Considering the evidence Principal Judge, Family Court awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,500/- per month only. 7. After going through the record, I find that solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner and the claimant has been admitted by this petitioner and the claimant also. The witnesses who had been produced on behalf of the petitioner and the claimant had also stated that this petitioner had married the claimant. Thus, there is no dispute about the relationship of the petitioner and the claimant. They are husband and wife. The witnesses clearly stated that this petitioner has neglected the claimant and is not maintaining her. This is a question of fact. This finding of fact has been arrived at by the Trial Court based on the statement of the witnesses. This finding cannot be said to be perverse as there are sufficient materials which the trial court has discussed, to arrive at the aforesaid finding. 8. When the relationship of husband and wife is established and it is also established by evidence as held by the Principal 2025:JHHC:21201 3 Judge, Family Court that this petitioner being the husband has neglected his wife, the wife is entitled of maintenance. 9. On the question of quantum the claimant had claimed that the petitioner is earning rupees one lakh per month. The trial court disbelieved the aforesaid statement and based on the material had come to a conclusion that free income of this petitioner is Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. 10. Considering the aforesaid income the Family Judge fixed the amount of maintenance as Rs. 5,500/- per month. I find no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in fixation of quantum or in any of the finding arrived at by the Principal Judge. 11. So far as the earlier marriage of this claimant is concerned though some statement has been made but there is no concrete proof in favour of such statement. The trial court has also considered the same but did not find any sufficient material. 12. Considering the entire judgment and what has been held above, I find that no illegality in the final order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 102 of 2023 whereby maintenance has been awarded. 13. This Criminal Revision is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/