2025:JHHC:20569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1318 of 2022 Siril Baski, S/o late Rubilal Baski, R/o Village-Khairbani, P.O.-Kuruwa, P.S.-Dumka(M), District-Dumka ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Basanti Murmu, W/o Siril Baski, D/o late Sidam Murmu, at present R/o Village-Khairbani, P.O.- Kuruwa, P.S.-Dumka(M), District-Dumka 3. Neha Baski, D/o Siril Baski, at present R/o Village-Dhanbari, P.O.- Morbhanga, P.S.-Dumka(M), District-Dumka … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, APP ------ Order No. 06 / Dated : 25.07.2025. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Maintenance Case No.-78/2019, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. As per the case of opposite party no. 2, the marriage was solemnized on 24.05.2003, but after sometime the petitioner refused to live with opposite party no. 2 as he married with another lady. Learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 40,000/- per month and he has also a landed property from which he earns Rs. 25,000/- per month. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that Opposite Party No. 2 had never lived with the petitioner and was in an adulterous relationship with one Police Murmu. The maintenance, awarded, is excessive as the petitioner is a Police Constable and earns Rs.40,000/- per month. 4. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner, is not substantiated on the basis of evidence on record. On the contrary, it has come in evidence that it was the petitioner who married with another woman namely Kiran Toppo, consequently the O.P. No. 2 was constrained to live in her parental home. 5. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in the instant revision application. There is definite finding of fact that Rs.65,000/- per month was assessed by learned Family Court as the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, the award of compensation cannot be said to be excessive. Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -