( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -1- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 Dhaneshwar Sharma, aged about 70 years, son of Late Dayal Thakur, resident of Village- Gandhi High School, Kalali Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumri Telaiya, District- Koderma … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Uma Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Dhaneshwar Sharma, resident of Village- Gandhi High School, Kalali Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumri Telaiya, District- Koderma … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate Mr. Abhijit Abhilash Tirkey, Advocate ----- 12/24.09.2025 Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.66 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the petition and the petitioner is also directed to pay the arrear amount in 12 equal installments within next 12 months and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the opposite party no.2. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -2- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 before the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, wherein it was alleged that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1972 and after marriage, opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial home. He further submits that it was further stated in the said application that the petitioner never liked opposite party no.2 since beginning and started to torture her mentally and physically. It was also stated in the said application that opposite party no.2 gave birth to a daughter, namely, Archana Sharma from their wedlock. It was further stated that the petitioner performed second marriage upon which opposite party no.2 made an application before the Police and, thereafter, the petitioner ready to pay maintenance to opposite party no.2, but since 2020 the petitioner is not paying maintenance to her, however, the petitioner is a Director in Adarsh Vidya School, Jhumri Telaiya having monthly income of Rs.50,000/- other than agricultural and own house. He then submits that the petitioner appeared in the said case and filed his show-cause and has stated that opposite party no.2 is neither his wife nor their marriage was solemnized in the year 1972 though the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Chandramohani Sharma in the year 1974 and out of their wedlock, there are three off-springs. He submits that opposite party no.2 was living in relationship with the petitioner and out of the said relationship, she gave birth of daughter namely Archana Sharma and the petitioner gave a house to her and also borne all her expenses ensuring a proper maintenance of opposite party no.2 and her daughter supported financially in her academics till M.A. and B.Ed. degree and she is presently a Teacher in D.A.V. School, Barhi and earning about Rs.50,000/- per month and ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -3- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 married and now opposite party no.2 is residing with her daughter Archana Sharma and takes care of her two kids. He next submits that in the aforesaid backgrounds, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma has passed the impugned order in the said original maintenance case and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the petition and direction was there that the petitioner will pay arrear amount in 12 equal installments within next 12 months and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. He then submits that opposite party no.2 was residing along with the petitioner in live-in relationship and out of the said relationship, she gave birth to a daughter, namely, Archana Sharma. He further submits that the learned Court has not taken care of the fact that the petitioner has provided all facilities to opposite party no.2 and in spite of that, the said order has been passed. According to him, marriage was not solemnized with opposite party no.2 and in view of that, opposite party no.2 is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that the learned Court has wrongly passed the impugned order and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned Court has appreciated all the facts by way of elaborating all the materials and evidences and has given finding and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Court has appreciated all the facts, which have been argued before this Court and answered the same and, thereafter, passed ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -4- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 the order. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636, in the case of Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 796 and in the case of Yamunabhai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 530 and submits that in light of the said judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme held that the entitlement for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available to a legally wedded wife. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and submits that the remedy provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and the substantive disputes with respect to the dissolution of marriage can be determined by a Civil Court/Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act. He then submits that the nature of enquiry in connection with a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been mentioned in paragraph 32 of the said judgment. He refers paragraphs 32 and 33 of the said judgment, which read as under: “32. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 CrPC is predicated on two conditions: (i) the husband has sufficient means; and (ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. 33. The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined by a civil court/Family Court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -5- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353. He refers paragraph 2 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.” Relying on the above judgment, he submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain the wife. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. From the pleadings in the present criminal revision petition, it is crystal clear that out of the relationship between the petitioner and opposite party no.2, one daughter has born. The petitioner has also admitted in this criminal ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -6- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 revision petition that the petitioner was residing along with opposite party no.2 and he has provided accommodation and other maintenance to opposite party no.2. This aspect of the matter has also been taken into consideration by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma that the relationship has been admitted by the petitioner. 8. It has come in the impugned order that opposite party no.2 has examined three witnesses; P.W.1-Uma Devi, who is opposite party no.2; P.W.2-Archana Sharma (Devi), who is daughter of opposite party no.2 and P.W.3-Santosh Bhandari, who is cousin of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 has exhibited the signature on compromise dated 19.12.2011 as Exhibit-1. The petitioner has also examined four witnesses; O.P.W.1-Sheetal Sharma, who is daughter of the petitioner; O.P.W.2-Kali Singh; O.P.W3- Pancham Mahto and himself the petitioner as O.P.W.4. The petitioner has also exhibited certain documents such as Exhibit-A, which is the online copy of old age pension of the petitioner; Exhibit-B, which is the UDISE+ data of Adarsh Vidyalay; Exhibit-C, which is the death certificate of Chandramohani Sharma and Mark-Y, which is visit details by Social Security Officer, ESI Corporation. 9. Opposite party no.2 was examined as P.W.1 and she has stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in the year 1972 and out of the wedlock one child was born, namely, Archana Sharma. She has further stated that the petitioner has remarried with Chandramohani Kukal after birth of the daughter upon which as per the decision of Panchayat some maintenance was paid to her, however, since 2020 not a single penny is paid to her. She has further asserted that the petitioner is a Principal of Adarsh Bal Vidyalaya and he is having income of Rs.40-45 thousand along with ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -7- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 agricultural income in Crores. In her cross-examination, she has admitted of having no document with regard to her marriage and at that time, she was 15-16 years of age. She has stated that she was provided with two rooms by the petitioner who now resides in Bangalore while the school is managed by his younger daughter. She has also admitted that the petitioner used to bear all the expenses of Archana Sharma including her educational expenses apart from maintaining her. P.W.-2-Archana Sharma, who is the daughter of opposite party no.2 has also stated in the same line. 10. O.P.W-1-Sheetal Sharma, who is the daughter of the petitioner and Chandramohani Sharma has claimed that her father suffers from various ailment and he is maintained by his son Lokesh Sharma as he himself does not do any work. Her mother is a cancer patient undergoing treatment in Bangalore. O.P.W-2- Kali Singh has stated that Chandramohani Devi since deceased to be the wife of the petitioner who himself has no source of income. O.P.W.-3- Pancham Mahto though claimed to be acquainted with the petitioner since childhood and he stated that the petitioner is having only a son and a daughter. O.P.W-4, who is the petitioner himself has denied any relationship with opposite party no.2, but she had begotten him a daughter in 1982 thereby admitting his illicit relationship with her. He has also stated that he had borne the educational expenses of the daughter Archana Sharma and had given opposite party no.2 a two-room house which is presently in her possession. 11. Considering all these evidences, the learned Court has found that in light of the record it is clear that opposite party no.2 was compelled to live separate due to the marriage of the petitioner with Chandramohani Sharma ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -8- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 and in view of that, the learned Court has found that there is reasonable cause with opposite party no.2 to live separately from the petitioner. The learned Court has further found that although the marriage has been denied by the petitioner, but birth of the daughter as well as maintenance to opposite party no.2 till the outbreak of Covid pandemic in the year 2020 has been admitted by the petitioner. In light of Exhibit-1, the learned Court has found that the petitioner has admitted about family dispute with opposite party no.2 prior to this case and in light of that, the learned Court has come to the conclusion that in view of this it is an admitted position that so far as the marriage is concerned, that can be a subject-matter of another proceeding and for deciding the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., there is sufficient ground to decide the same as out of the relationship a daughter has born and the relationship has been established in view of the aforesaid facts. 12. The petitioner despite admitting a bank account in his name, has not furnished its details in his affidavit of assets and liabilities. The learned Court has also found that so far as certificate of old age pension is concerned, that was applied on 01.12.2022, whereas, the said case was filed by opposite party no.2 on 22.06.2022 and in view of that, the learned Court has found that the application for old age pension was an after thought solely for the purpose to frustrate relief sought by the opposite party no.2. The learned Court has found that the petitioner herein has taken all steps to hide the original things. In light of the judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the affidavit is mandatory on the point of assets and liabilities and the petitioner herein has failed to do so. The petitioner himself has stated that he is running a school as a Director and on the other hand, he has stated ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -9- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 that he himself is dependent on his son and old age pension and that is also found contradictory by the learned Court. The learned Court has further found that the petitioner was not unemployed and considering all these aspects, the learned Court has been pleased to pass the order of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 by the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and the petitioner is also directed to pay the arrear amount in 12 equal installments within next 12 months and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the opposite party no.2. 13. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, this aspect of the matter has been considered very elaborately. In the facts of the present case, so far as marriage is concerned, in light of the finding of the learned Court of live-in relationship, it is sufficient to pass such order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. For nullity or dissolution of marriage, there can be another proceeding but that cannot be under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was in live-in relationship with opposite party no.2 and he has admitted the birth of a girl child. It is sufficient to grant maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 14. The proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature. Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children as it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied and his obligation cannot be denied. ( 2025:JHHC:29727 ) -10- Criminal Revision No. 827 of 2024 15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. There is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 16. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 24th September, 2025 Ajay/ A.F.R.