2025:JHHC:20379 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 969 of 2024 ------ Sunil Kumar, son of Bhuneshwar Mahto, resident of Village Odarna, P.O. Marhand, P.S. Katkamdag, District Hazaribag, at present residing at Chintamani House No.317, Road No.3, Basant Vihar, Harmu, P.O. & P.S. Argoda, District Ranchi .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anju Kumari, wife of Sunil Kumar 3. Sonam Kumari, daughter of Sunil Kumar, represented through her natural guardian, her mother (opposite party no.2) Both resident of Village Odarna, P.O. Marhand, P.S. Katkamdag, District Hazaribag, at present residing at Ward No.12, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma .... .... .... Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate Ms. Nupur Singh, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate ------ Order No.08 Dated : 24.07.2025 This criminal revision is preferred against the order of maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month for opposite party no.2 and Rs.3000/- per month for opposite party no.3 in Original Maintenance Case No.40 of 2021 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3. 2. The order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that it was passed ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to put up his defence and lead evidence. The learned trial Court misdirected itself to assess a monthly income of Rs.50,000/- on the basis of oral testimony of the applicant and the insurance paper was submitted with respect to two cars. 3. It is submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had called for a report from the Superintendent of Police to ascertain the property of the petitioner and his parents, both movable and immovable. In pursuant to the order, a report has been received, wherein it has been stated that 2025:JHHC:20379 the petitioner lives in the joint family and has only 6 – 7 Kathas of land for cultivation. It has also been stated that one Maruti car financed by Mahindra Finance, is in the name of the petitioner. By referring these materials, it is urged that Rs.10,000/- per month is excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. P.C. Sinha appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner being the husband of opposite party no.2, deliberately did not appear before the family Court and now this plea is being taken that he was fully ignorant about the pending case. The Court proceeded ex-parte after paper publication. 5. On the point of income, it is argued that insurance paper of two cars which were submitted, were being plied on rent by the petitioner, considering it the family Court has awarded the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for both mother and her minor daughter. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is difficult to be persuaded by the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was completely ignored about the proceedings in the maintenance case. Being husband of O.P. No.2 and father of O.P. No.3, to plead that despite issuance of notice, he was ignorant about the proceeding, is beyond comprehension. Act of not participating in the proceeding, reflects a contumacious conduct to avoid and delay the payment of maintenance amount. 7. With regard to the point of maintenance awarded of Rs.7000/- to O.P. No.2 and Rs.3000/- to O.P. No.3, cannot in any way be said to be excessive. It has come in evidence supported by insurance papers that the petitioner was a cab operator. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Criminal Revision accordingly stands rejected. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit