2025:JHHC:21079 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 890 of 2024 Rajnish Ranjan, S/o Rajeshwar Thakur, R/o Ramdhanipur, P.S. Gopalpur, P.O. H.Kacchuara, Dist.- Patna, Bihar, Permanent Address-Village-Bahadurpur, P.O. + P.S.-Nalanda, District-Patna, Bihar ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Pushpa Sharma, W/o Rajnish Ranjan, D/o Umesh Sharma at present R/o-Chhaya Nagar, Humpipe Area, Near Mansa Mandir, P.O.-Sakchi, P.S.- Sitaramdera, Town-Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East. 3. Minor Riyansh Sharma, S/o Rajnish Ranjan, Represented through his natural guardian mother O.P. No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Sharma, W/o Rajnish Ranjan, D/o Umesh Sharma at present R/o-Chhaya Nagar, Humpipe Area, Near Mansa Mandir, P.O.-Sakchi, P.S.-Sitaramdera, Town-Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East. … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate Mr. Bipin Bihari, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Tirvedi, Advocate Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP For the O.P. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 30.07.2025. 1. This instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order of maintenance of Rs.6000/- passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Original Maintenance Case no. 46 of 2022. The order of maintenance has been made in favour of the opposite party no. 2 to Rs.3000/- who is the wife of the petitioner and opposite party no. 3 her minor child to Rs.3000/-. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there is no assessment of income of the petitioner and no documentary evidence has been filed to show that the petitioner was employed or he was drawing any salary by any regular employment. There is also no evidence to show that he was having any monthly income. 3. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides from the declaration of the assets and liabilities by the petitioner, it is apparent that he was having a monthly income of Rs.11,000/- per month. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not employed in the hospital as no 2025:JHHC:21079 documentary evidence has been adduced regarding it, there cannot be any denial that the petitioner was having monthly income of Rs.11,000/-. 4. Under the circumstance, total maintenance of Rs.5000/- for his wife and child will be just and reasonable. Maintenance as awarded is accordingly modified. 5. With the aforesaid modification of the maintenance amount, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -