1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1140 of 2022 …. Ramesh Mahto, aged about 44 years, son of Budhram Mahto resident of Matigarha, Q.No.-M-4-1, Sector-IV, Matigarha, P.O.- Nadkhurki, P.S. Baghmara, District.-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ……Petitioner Versus 1. Kaushalaya Devi, wife of Budhram Mahato 2. Budhram Mahto, son of Late Ganpat Mahto Both resident of Bhimkanali Basti, P.O. Khanudih, P.S. Baghmara, District.- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 3. BCCL, through its General Manager, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad. ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the BCCL : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate …… CAV on 07.03.2025 Pronounced on 25.03.2025 This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner namely Ramesh Mahto by challenging the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad, in Original Maintenance Case No.29 of 2020 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner has further been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- lump sum amount as litigation cost. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 2 counsel for the O.P. No.1 and 2 and, learned counsels appearing on behalf of B.C.C.L. 3. It reveals that O.P. Nos.1 and 2 namely Kaushalaya Devi and Budhram Mahto respectively, who are the mother and father of the petitioner, had filed the Original Maintenance Case No.29 of 2020 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. The case of the O.P. Nos.1 & 2, in brief, is that as per the impugned judgment of the Original Maintenance Case, is that the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 namely Kaushlaya Devi and Budhram Mahto are parents of the petitioner, however, their son i.e. the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 in spite of getting employment in M/s B.C.C.L in lieu of acquisition of house and land vide Award No. 36, Land Acquisition Case No.11/84– 85. It is further stated that the father i.e. O.P. No.2 is suffering from Cancer and they are unable to maintain themselves as they have no source of income. However, their son, is employed in M/s BCCL and his monthly salary is Rs. 61,000/- approx. and hence they may be awarded as maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment passed on 25.08.2022 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the maintenance case has been instituted by the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 at the instigation by the brothers of the petitioner and for which he had also filed written complaint before the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat 3 Bhimkanali, Police Station Baghmara in the District of Dhanbad on 27.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 respectively. It is submitted that the learned Court below has assessed wrong salary of petitioner as Rs.91,077/- because the net salary of the petitioner is Rs.54,496.76/- for which he has enclosed the salary slip as contained in Annexure-9. It is submitted that even the medical expenses of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 have been borne by the petitioner and even he had borne the expenses of Cancer treatment of the father vide receipts marked as Annexure-10. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 has been getting pension of Rs.8,743/- per month and the O.P. No.1 has got fixed deposit of Rs. 8,26,121/- which will mature on 01.03.2022 to the extent of Rs.19,54,354/- in the bank account and the same has to be transferred to the other brothers of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 also has got land measuring eight (08) decimal in Mouza Hursodih, Halka-10, Holding No. 26, Thana No.72 (Topchanchi), Dhanbad and another land measuring 1.81 Acres in Mouz Domchalkaro, Holding No.4 Anchal Baghmara, Thana No.75, Dhanbad. It is submitted that the Learned Court below has failed to consider that the father of the petitioner had already transferred the money to his other two brothers in 2021 itself. It is submitted that the learned Court below has passed the order of maintenance in mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence available on record. 6. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to consider that till 2019 the Opposite parties No.1 and No.2 had stayed with the petitioner and the two brothers of the petitioner had instigated the opposite parties to lodge the maintenance case. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner for not maintaining his parents are false and concocted. It is stated that O.P. No.1 (i.e. the mother) is the Owner of the huge land and property and she is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) per year whereas the O.P. No.2 namely Budhram Mahto (i.e. the father of the petitioner) was an ex-employee of M/s BCCL and he is regularly receiving his pension per month apart from the huge amount of post retiral benefits in several lakhs and also earning interest thereon and they are self-sufficient and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Court is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider the evidence of witnesses of the petitioner who are examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and RW-3 namely Ramesh Mahto, Baldev Prasad Mahto and Banshi Prasad Mahto respectively. It is submitted that the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 are old aged parents of the petitioner who has thoroughly been neglected by the petitioner after getting job in M/s BCCL in the place of O.P. No.2, and who had taken VRS in favour of the petitioner for securing his job. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not only neglected the treatment of the O.P. No.2 who has been suffering from Cancer but he has also failed to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three Lakhs) for his treatment of Cancer before the hospital concerned. It is submitted that the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 namely Kaushalaya Devi and Budhram Mahto respectively and 5 they have fully supported their case. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as Shovel Operator in M/s BCCL and his gross monthly salary was Rs.1,17,000/- in the year 2021 and after his deduction he was receiving Rs.91,000/- at the relevant time of filing of this case before the learned Court below. 8. It is submitted that the other elder son and younger son of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 somehow hardly maintain their wives and children and who have got meager income. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner is a Teacher in Government School and is earning handsomely. It is submitted that the evidence of RW-1 i.e. the petitioner is not trustworthy and has rightly been rejected by the Court below. It is submitted that RW-2 and RW-3 are unreliable witnesses and they are interested witness and hence, this Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2022 may be dismissed. 9. Having heard, learned counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner is the elder son of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 namely Kaushalaya Devi and Budhram Mahto and he has got two brothers also. 10. It is also evident that the petitioner has secured job in BCCL in place of his father i.e. O.P. No.2 who has surrendered his job in favour of the petitioner. 11. Although, the Counter Affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 and Lower Court Records has not been called for. However, this Court finds that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is descriptive and even the learned counsel for the petitioner has enclosed the evidence of witnesses and photocopy of the O.M.C No.29 of 2020 filed by the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad as well as the photocopy 6 of the affidavits of petitioner Ramesh Mahto of his assets and liabilities and also the photocopy of the affidavit of asset and liability of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 and also the photocopy of evidence of RW-1 Ramesh Mahto, RW-2 Baladev Prasad Mahto and RW-3 Bansi Prasad Mahto and also the evidence of PW-1 Kaushalaya Devi and O.P. No.2 i.e. Budhram Ram respectively. 12. It appears that the papers of treatment before T.M.H. and some prescription and money receipts of medicine of O.P. No.1 namely Kaushalaya Devi before BCCL Dhanbad and also the statement of Joint Account of O.P. Nos.1 and 2 Kaushalaya Devi and Budhram Mahto respectively from 01.07.2020 to 01.09.2022 respectively have been enclosed and hence, this case is being disposed of at the Admission itself without calling for the Lower Court Records. 13. It transpires that the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 had filed this case before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Dhanabd on 02.01.2020 under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance of Rs.25,000 per month from the petitioner who was arrayed the Respondent before the learned Court below, however, they remained silent about their other two sons namely Baijnath Mahto and Rajan Mahto. They have mainly stated that the O.P. No.2 is suffering from Cancer and he also owns 79 decimals land situated at Domchal Karo Moza, even the O.P. No.1 Kaushalya Devi filed an affidavit regarding her assets and liabilities. 14. On the other hand, the petitioner has also filed his affidavit by disclosing that he has two minor sons Ankit Kumar Mahto and Ankur Kumar Mahto aged about 18 years and 12 years respectively and he has shown his average income of Rs.40,000/- 7 while working in M/s BCCL as Shovel Operator. 15. It reveals from the photocopy of the sale deed dated 06.12.2019, that O.P. No.2 Budhram Mahto had sold 8 decimals land to one Rajesh Mahto on consideration of payment of Rs1.75,000/- Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the parents have earned huge income by selling eight (8) decimals land. The petitioner had examined RW-1 and other two witnesses RW-2 and RW-3 namely Ramesh Mahto, Baladev Prasad Mahto and Bansi Prasad Mahto respectively. 16. It further reveals from the impugned judgment that the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 had examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2 before the learned Court below. Even though, the petitioner had got exhibited the photocopy of sale deed which were marked for identification as Y. 17. Thereafter, the learned Court below has awarded maintenance to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 by its impugned judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in O.M. Case No.29 of 2020 to pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the O.P. No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to the O.P. No.2 i.e. the total Rs.20,000/- per month. 18. From perusal of evidence of PW-1 Kaushalaya Devi, it appears that she has claimed maintenance amount only against the petitioner who is the elder son and who had got job in M/s BCCL in place of his father and also stated that her two other sons are Baijnath Mahto and Rajan Mahto are involved in agriculture work. She also stated that the petitioner Ramesh Mahto had been given job in place of his father around 20 years ago and he is getting approx. Rs.61,000/- per month. 19. During cross examination, she stated that her husband had 8 retired 10 years ago and she used to receive papers regarding treatment in BCCL. She also admitted that her other sons Baijnath Mahto and Rajan Mahto are living with them in her house and the said house stands in the name of her husband which is having six (06) rooms and also having cow and goat. She further admitted and stated that they had given the job to her elder son when he became mature on her own wish. She had also received money in lieu of the land acquisition. She also stated that the sale deed was executed on 06.12.2019 which is marked as the Exhibit for identification which was executed by her husband Budhram Mahto on getting Rs.1,75,000/- and which are in the name of her two younger sons. 20. Thus, from scrutinizing from the evidence of PW-1, it is evident that she has fully supported her case and she has stated the petitioner has neglected her and her husband. She also stated during her cross-examination that though their needs were fulfilled by Pension, Agriculture work, Cow, Buffalo and Landed properties but they want money as they have given job to her son. She also stated that her husband was properly treated in Bombay and her elder son took her to Bombay for treatment however, he had neglected him after 9 days. She also denied the suggestion for instituting the case at the instigation of by her two sons. Thus, PW-1 has supported the maintenance case. 21. PW-2 is Budhram Mahto (i.e. O.P. No.2) who is the father of the petitioner and he also stated during his evidence that his son Ramesh Singh is Shovel Operator in M/s BCCL and his monthly salary is approx. Rs.1,17,000/- and is getting Rs.91,000 after deduction. However, Ramesh Mahto (i.e. the petitioner) has got his wife and his two sons and his wife is a Teacher in Government 9 High School. O.P. No.2 has two daughters and they are married. He further stated that he has been suffering from Cancer and even his wife is not well and he is also suffering from blood pressure. He is having Cancer since 2018 and he was referred to Dhanbad for treatment and Doctor had advised to refer to big hospital but the petitioner Ramesh Mahto neglected him for his treatment. Thereafter, the O.P. No.2 left for Hyderabad and got conducted his test and called the petitioner to pay the money but the petitioner again failed to make any expenditure for his treatment. Even Ramesh Mahto has not paid Rs.3,00,000/- which was incurred towards his treatment in Mumbai Hospital. He claimed that he had taken loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from his relative for his treatment. He further stated that his wife had got illness and his son has got job in his place and the petitioner Ramesh Mahto remained with them for about two years. Thereafter, the petitioner has been living separately. 22. During cross examination he stated that he has retired from M/s BCCL as Fan Operator and he had got permanent job and he had retired on 17.10.2013, although he was in job from 1973. After retirement, he got Rs.8,50,000/- Lakhs as Gratuity and approx. Rs.12,50,000/- as Provident Fund and he is getting monthly Pension Rs.5,000/- per month but he is not getting medical allowances separately. He also admitted that that the younger sons brought him for giving evidence in Court, he also had admitted that his land was acquired in 1984-85 while he was in job in M/s BCCL. He admitted that presently he had 89 decimals land but apart from this he has no other land and before this case, he had transferred eight (08) decimals of land to his sons Baijnath Mahto and Rajesh 10 Mahto. However, he further stated that on institution of this case on 02.07.2020, the petitioner Ramesh Mahto had given an application before the police station against the two sons with regard to assault. He further admitted that there is 1 acre 81 decimal land in his name and one Bhola Mahto. He further submitted that his son Baijnath has got two daughters Punam Kumari and Kirti Kumari. He denied the suggestions that he is not allowing his son Ramesh Mahto i.e. the petitioner to have share in the ancestral house and he has filed a false case at the instance of two other sons. Thus, from scrutinizing of the evidence of PW-2, it is evident that he has also supported the maintenance case. 23. RW-1 i.e. the petitioner Ramesh Mahto himself has supported his case the case by stating that his father had got Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) towards the Gratuity and approx. Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs) towards the Provident Fund and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three lakhs) leave Encashment after retiring from BCCL. His father and mother were treated on the basis of health card. He got treated his father earlier in Mumbai then in Jamshedpur and he had borne all the expenses till October 2019. Thereafter, he was restrained by his two brothers for treating his parents and for which he submitted the application before Mukhiya. He further stated that his father in living along with the two brother at Mohalla Bhimkanali in the house which was constructed over 10 decimals of land having (08) Pacca rooms and six (06) rooms of Asbestos sheet which costs of approx. Rs.50-60 Lakhs. His father is keeping Cow, Goat and doing paddy cutting business and getting and also agriculture work from which they are 11 earning Rs.15,000 per month. He further stated that his second brother has get Flour Mill and which stands in the name of his daughter Kirti Kumari by which he has been earning Rs.60,000/- per month. Similarly his younger brother has been earning Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. He further stated that land was standing in the name of his grandfather and in lieu of which he has been given the job and at that time his father was in M/s BCCL and his mother also tried to get her job in place of his grandfather’s land but she could not succeed and two other brothers were minor as such he was given the job. His mother got eight (08) decimals at village - Hursodih which cost around Rs. 15,00,000/- lakh and he also claimed that his father is having property of over Rs.One (01) crore. He further stated that his net salary is Rs.50,000/- and he is having two sons and who are maintained by him and his expenses Rs.30,000 to Rs. 35,000/- per month for their educational expenses. He wanted to keep his mother and father with him but they do not live with them. They have instituted the case which was instigated by his two brothers. 24. During cross-examination he admitted that his father is aged about 65 years and his mother is aged about 63 years and he admitted that his father is suffering from Cancer and which treatment is costly and his father was treated at Mumbai in which cost Rs.80,000/- was borne by which in the year 2019. Thus, from the evidence of PW-1 is evident that his father and mother are having self sufficient income and able to maintain themselves and they have properties of more than one (01) crore in their respective names and they are also keeping domestic animals 12 like cow, goat etc. also and they are doing agriculture works. However, he had admitted that he was given the job in place of his father. 25. RW-2 is Baldeo Prasad Mahato who is a LIC agent and stated his during his evidence that O.P. No.2 had retired and employed in M/s BCCL. Budhram Mahto i.e. O.P. No.2 had received post retiral benefits for which no money was given to the petitioner Ramesh Mahto. Budhram Mahto has ancestral land and also got 90 decimals in his name in which agriculture work is done. Even Kaushalaya Devi i.e. O.P. No.1 is keeping 4-5 cows and she is also doing business whereas his younger is running Flour Mill and he has also been getting handsome income. He further stated that the two brothers of the petitioner Ramesh Mahto have got instituted the present case and they have got stopped the treatment of their father. He also stated that Ramesh Mahto has to made expenses from his income to maintain his family and educational expenses of his son and Ramesh Mahto have no separated landed property whereas the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 have sufficient properties and are also having different source of income by which they can maintain themselves. 26. During cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner Ramesh is working in M/s BCCL and Ramesh Mahto and his wife is living in his BCCL quarter since the year 2012 and the wife of Ramesh Mahto is in Government High School. However, he had not seen the paper of income of O.P. No.2 Budhram Mahto, and he is not aware of the income of the petitioner Ramesh Mahto. 27. Thus, the evidence of RW-2 reveals that he has given evidence at the instance of petitioner and he also admitted that the wife of petitioner is Teacher in Government School. 13 28. RW-3 Bansidhar Prasad Mahto has also supported the case of the petitioner and stated that the behaviour of parents and two younger brother is not proper towards the petitioner Ramesh Mahto. He claimed that O.P. No.1 Kaushalaya Devi is keeping Cow and selling milk and she has got landed property and earning approx. Rs.13000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month. After the dispute between the petitioner Ramesh Mahto and his two sons i.e. the brother of the petitioner stopped going to the house of O.P. No.1 and 2 and they are not taking treatment through the petitioner Ramesh Mahto and also admitted that two sons of the petitioner are staying with them. During cross-examination he admitted for giving evidence at the instance of Ramesh Mahto, but he is not aware about exact salary of Ramesh Mahto and his wife, who is Teacher in Government School. However, he denied that Ramesh Matho is getting approx. Rs.1,00,000/- as salary from BCCL his wife is getting Rs.60,000/-70,000/- per month. 29. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner has filed this case by challenging the maintenance order passed in favour of the mother and father. It is the case of the petitioner is that he has been burdened with the liability of his aged parents only whereas he has two other brothers namely Baijnath Mahto and Rajan Mahto and even the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 are self sufficient. He has even two other sisters namely Shanti Kumari and Kanti Kumari. He claimed that his monthly salary is approx. Rs.54,000/- per month before instituting this Criminal Revision Application. However, from the evidence placed before the learned Court below that he had failed to show the pay slip of BCCL whereas the petitioner has claimed his monthly salary in para 24 of his deposition as 14 Rs.1,17,000/-. As, it reveals from the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2022 by the learned Court below. Therefore, this Court finds that the monthly gross salary of the petitioner was Rs.1,17,000/- atleast in the year 2022 but the monthly salary of the petitioner was not brought on record. From perusal of the Annexure-9 which is the monthly salary pay slip of the petitioner filed in month of 14th November 2024, it reveals that the gross salary of the petitioner was Rs.1,17,731/- in November 2021 and his net salary was Rs.91007/- and despite the fact he stated for the first instance that his salary is Rs. 50,000/- per month which is apparently incorrect. The petitioner also enclosed Annexure-7 series relating to landed property in the name of his uncle Bhola Mahto and father Budhram Mahto which finds place at page 101, from which it reveals that they have got total 1 acre and 80 decimals of land. Thus, the O.P. No.2 is correct to the extent that he had approx. 90 decimals of land of total joint property of 1.81 acres lands. 30. This Court finds that the conduct of the petitioner is not so satisfactory and he has been contesting the case like an ordinary litigant and denied the payment of maintenance amount. 31. However, even the O.P. No.1 and 2 they have got eight (08) Pacca rooms and six (06) Asbestos room and are doing agriculture work but that does not absolve the right of the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount to his old aged parents and particularly in view of the fact that his father had left job for his place instead of his two other sons. 32. Although, the O.P. No.2 had retired in the year 2013 even the petitioner has stated during his evidence examined as RW-1 as 15 from when he is doing job in BCCL rather he is placing the property of his father its market value and has wrongly stated in Para-2 that his monthly salary is 50,000/- but later on he corrected himself that his monthly salary was Rs.1,17,000/- and which finds place from Annexure-9 series, which is monthly pay slip of Ramesh Mahto of November 2021 showing gross salary of Rs.1,17,731 and Net Salary as Rs.91077/-. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay the maintenance amount to his parents. 33. It has been held in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at para 112 which is as follow:- “Para-112:- In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Supreme Court was consideration the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.PC. the Court held: (SCC p.196, para 13) “13.3. …. Purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounded duty of the Courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” 34. So far as, quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, it would appear that the petitioner has got two son and wife although his wife is also a school teacher but he is also maintaining his family. 16 35. It further reveals that O.P. No.1 and 2 got two other sons were living with them and maintaining their parents and also doing agriculture work and flour mill etc. Therefore, the quantum amount can be reduced to some extent. 36. This is not one of those cases in which the father and mother of the petitioner is having not source of income or having no property rather this is one of those such cases wherein it is evident that the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 has got two sons and two daughters also. Even O.P. No.1 i.e the mother has maintaining Cow, Goat, etc. and doing some domestic business and O.P. No.2 i.e. the father of the petitioner retired from BCCL and getting pension of some extent and has also issued health card. Therefore, the petitioner alone is not liable to pay the entire maintenance to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 rather it is also the joint liability of the remaining sons namely Baijnath Mahto and Rajan Mahto and two daughters namely Sita Devi and Rita Devi of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2. and even the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 have got their own house consisting of eight (08) Pacca rooms and also six (06) Asbestos room. Hence in the present case, it will not be desirable to give one fourth (¼) or one fifth (1/5) of the Net salary of the petitioner. 37. In view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and several other Judicial pronouncements, the petitioner being son of O.P No.1 and O.P. No.2 is bound to pay the maintenance to his old aged mother and father. He cannot shirk his liability for not furnishing them. Before the maintenance amount, although the petitioner has been awarded Rs.10,000/- each respectively i.e. total Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No. 2. 38. It also appears from the pleadings that the mother namely 17 Kaushalaya Devi i.e. O.P. No.1 is also maintaining Cow, Goat etc. and doing business and is living with sons. The maintenance amount of O.P. No.1 i.e. the mother of the petitioner is reduced to Rs.7,000/- per month from Rs.10,000/- per month, as awarded by the learned Court below. 39. So far as the maintenance amount of the O.P. No.2, Budhram Mahto i.e. Rs.10,000/- is concerned, the same does not require any interference at this stage, as admittedly it is the own admission of the parties that the O.P. No.2 i.e. the father of the petitioner, is suffering form Cancer, and as such the same is affirmed. 40. Accordingly, the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad is modified to the extent that the maintenance amount of the O.P. No.1 namely Kaushalaya Devi is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. However, no interference is required in the part of the order by which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the O.P. No.2 i.e. his father and the petitioner is liable to pay the total maintenance amount Rs.17,000/- per month to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 as indicated above. 41. Thus, the Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2022 is allowed in part and to the extent as indicated above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) NAFR Nishant/-