2025:JHHC:21089 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 850 of 2024 Rajesh Kumar Pathak, S/o late Shivanand Pathak, R/o Village Tilatand BCCL Colony, P.O. Katras, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prabha Devi, W/o Late Shivanand Pathak, R/o Matigarha Dam Colony, P.O. Nadkhurki, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Satyam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 30.07.2025. 1. This instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs. 13,000/- in Original Maintenance Case No. 637 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance to his mother (opposite party no. 2). 2. The learned Family Court has noted that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in BCCL, subjected to condition that he will be maintaining his mother (opposite party no. 2). Despite the undertaking given, she was not being maintained and consequently, maintenance case was filed by her. Learned Family Court has taken into consideration the salary slip which has been marked as Exhibit-A under which the net salary of the petitioner was Rs.89,079/-. Considering the income of the petitioner, the maintenance of Rs.13,000/- has been awarded. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is only getting take home salary of Rs.60,000/- and therefore, the maintenance, awarded, is excessive. It is also submitted that the old lady aged 66 years is capable of maintaining herself. She has also employed a maid servant and she is also getting pension of Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month and opposite party no. 2 has three children and the provident fund and gratuity amount has also been credited in the account of opposite party no. 2. 2025:JHHC:21089 4. Income of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father, in which he had given an undertaking to his mother, who was constrained to take legal recourse after the petitioner failed to maintain her and appointed by the undertaking. 5. Considering income of the petitioner, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Criminal revision stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -