2025:JHHC:20542 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.210 of 2025 Mohammad Hasnain, S/o Md. Samiullah, R/o Ward No.12, Village- Chopdar Balia, PO- Gosai Balia, P.S. Barkagaon, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand, 825311 .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Aalia Khan, W/o Mohammad Hasnain and D/o Mosharaf Khan, R/o Dugda Main Market, Dugda Coal Washery, PO & PS Dugda, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Advocate Mr. Abdulla Umar, Advocate Mr. Syed Hozaifa Arsh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikash Anand, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate …... 07/ 25.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed against the quantum of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month awarded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Maintenance Case No.282 of 2023 against the petitioner in favour of O.P. No.2 under Section 125 Cr. P.C.. 2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A. No.1749 of 2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 297 days in preferring the instant Cr. Revision petition. 3. It is submitted that the order was passed ex-parte and he had no knowledge about the pendency of the maintenance case before the learned Family Court, Bokaro. Once he got knowledge about it, he filed requisites etc., for getting certified copy of the same and then he has preferred the instant Criminal Revision, as such, some delay has occurred in filing the same. 4. It is also submitted that earlier order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directing the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 to file their assets and liabilities in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Anr., reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 has not been complied by either side, and seeks adjournment to comply it within two weeks of the order. 2025:JHHC:20542 2 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 points out that the order for maintenance was ordered on 23.12.2023 and there is no stay of the order against the payment of maintenance. A distress warrant has also been issued, but still, no maintenance amount has been paid till date. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 further submits that notice was sent to the petitioner through the Registered Post and the tracking records of the Registered Post was filed before the Family Court and after considering the same, an ex-parte proceeding was drawn. 7. In reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not living in India and the applicant was aware of the same which is apparent from Para-7 of her deposition wherein she has stated that on 03.05.2023, petitioner had left for abroad i.e. Qatar. Therefore, the service of notice was made on wrong address. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the undisputed fact that emerges is that marriage was solemnized as per the Muslim rites and rituals between petitioner and O.P. No.2 on 09.11.2014. The maintenance case was filed after the petitioner left for Qatar in 2023. Learned Family Court accepted the evidence of the applicant/ wife that the petitioner was having a monthly income of Rs.1.50 Lakhs per and recorded a finding that O.P. No.2/ petitioner was having a monthly income from his work as Rs.1.50 Lakh. Apart from this it had come in evidence that, he also earned Rs.1 Lakh per month by sending the workers abroad. Considering the income of the petitioner, maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month was awarded. 9. Maintenance cases are summary in nature and is a measure towards social justice intended to bring the speedy remedy to wives, children and old parents so as to save them from destitution vagrancy. 10. In the present case, the husband is taking a plea that he was ignorant about the maintenance Case while in Qatar. However, the records do suggest that notices were duly served on his native/home address. The maintenance case was filed after 10 years of the subsistence of the marriage. In these circumstance, it is difficult to be persuaded by the argument on behalf of the 2025:JHHC:20542 3 Petitioner that he was unaware about the maintenance case filed by his wife. Since the maintenance application was served at his home address, it is difficult to be persuaded that Petitioner was blissfully ignorant about the pending maintenance case. Deliberately not appearing before the learned Family Court, any party(s) cannot adopt oblique approach to delay the disposal of the maintenance case. 11. Even otherwise also, the amount of maintenance allowed by the learned court below by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be excessive or unjust considering the occupation of the Petitioner abroad. The order of maintenance was passed in the year 2023 and more than 2 years have elapsed, but not a single penny has been given as maintenance. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the interlocutory application being I.A. No.1749 of 2025 filed for condonation of delay, as such, the said I.A. stands dismissed. In the result Cr. Revision is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/