2025:JHHC:20071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 896 of 2024 ----- Seikh Sajan, S/o Seikh Farooque, R/o Village-Bolia Eidgah Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Manihari, Dist.-Katihar, Bihar … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hasina Khatoon, W/o Seikh Sajan D/o Seikh Rustam 3. Ali Jan, minor son of Seikh Sajan, O.P. No.3 represented through his mother i.e. O.P. No.2, Both are R/o Village-Bolia Eidgah Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Manihari, Dist.-Katihar, Bihar presently residing at Village-Milik Itwa, P.O. & P.S.-Thakurgangti, Dist.-Godda … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Shankar, Advocate Mr. Praveen Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For O.P. Nos. 2-3 : Ms. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate ----- Oral Order 04 / Dated : 22.07.2025 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.05.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 176 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of O.P. No.2 and Rs.2,000/- in favour of O.P. No.3. 2. As per the case of the opposite parties, marriage was contracted on affidavit dated 26.06.2020 and according to Muslim Rites and Rituals on 01.08.2020, but the opposite parties were not properly maintained by the petitioner. Consequently, the maintenance case was filed. Learned Family Judge has recorded a finding that the income of the petitioner was not less than Rs.20,000/- per month, whereas O.P. No.2 was very poor and was not able to maintain herself and her child. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a daily wage labourer and does not have a consistent source of income, resulting in default of making payment of the maintenance amount. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 that the total arrear amount of Rs.2,16,000/- was directed to be paid by way 2025:JHHC:20071 2 of five installments within one year, but the same has not been paid. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction is confined to the legality of the impugned order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda. There is definite finding of fact of Rs.20,000/ per month as the monthly income of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I do not find the maintenance awarded to be excessive. This revision petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra