2025:JHHC:26744 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 139 of 2023 …. 1. Sangam Kumari Gupta @ Sangam Barnwal aged about 28 years W/O Binay Barnwal, D/O Anil Kumar Gupta 2. Vishwajeet Barnwal, aged about 06 years S/O Binay Banrwal, minor son represented through his natural guardian/mother Sangam Kumari Gupta Both residents of Mohalla Gopalmath Baganpara, PO- Gopalmath, PS- Wariya, District-West Burdhwan (West Bengal) Presently residing at Village- Pathra, PO and PS-Jasidih, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Binay Barnwal, S/O Suresh Barnwal, resident of Mohlla- Gopalmath Baganpara, PO- Gopalmath, PS- Wariya, District- West Bardhwan (West Bengal) …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the O. P. No. 2 : None. …… C.A.V. Judgment Pronounced on 29/08/2025 This Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Shri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar in Original Maintenance Case No. 18 of 2020 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed to the extent by giving direction to the husband- O. P. No. 2 to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner no. 1, Sangam Kumari Gupta @ Sangam Barnwal and 2025:JHHC:26744 2 Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2, Vishwajeet Barnwal i.e. total Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 16.01.2020 by 10th day of each month. The petitioners have further praye for enhancement of the total maintenance allowance from Rs. 3,500/- per month to Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners had filed the maintenance case before the learned Court below on 16.01.2020 under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. against the O.P. No.2 being Original Maintenance case no. 18/2020 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar stating therein that the marriage of petitioner no.1 namely Sangam Kumari Gupta @ Sangam Barnwal was solemnized on 04.06.2015 with the opposite party no. 2 as per Hindu rites and rituals performing all the essential ceremonies at Sarabgi Bhawan, Tar Bagan, N/O H.D.F.C. Bank, Raniganj, Distt. West Burdwan (W.B) and her parents had given Rs. 5.00 Lakh (Rs.5,00,000/-) in cash and different essential house hold goods in the marriage as gifts. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial house, where she remained peacefully for a period of four months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started demanding dowry of Two Lakh [Rs.2,00,000/-]. She further stated that her husband and in-laws started torturing her and then she informed her father and relatives in regard to the same. Thereafter, her father came there and pacified them. She further stated that her husband and in-laws assured there after that they will not demand any dowry and shall torture her, but they did not fulfill their assurance. In the meantime, she gave birth to a son on 16.09.2016. Still, her husband and in-laws were torturing her and not were providing food and necessary things. She further stated that one Panchayati was held at her matrimonial house and at her Naihar. A Panchayati was held on 2025:JHHC:26744 3 08.11.2019 also both at between the parties at village Pathra and the opposite party no. 2 took away her along with her minor son namely Viswajeet Burnwal to her matrimonial home with assurance to keep them properly. But she was again badly assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial home on 13.11.2019 along with her minor son by retaining her belongings and jewelry saying that they will not allow her and her son peacefully to live with them until their demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- is fulfilled. Thereafter, she informed her father about the incident on the same day, where upon her father came and got her medically treated at O.P.D. of Khandra Ukhra, B.P.S.C. Thus, she filed a complaint case also in this regard being complaint case no. 1554/2019 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. She stated that she along with her minor son thereafter took shelter at her parents' house at village Pathra and she has no income of her own whereas the opposite party is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his business of wholesale and retail of grocery shop. She further stated that the opposite party does not want to live with her and does not even maintain her. She further stated that she along with her minor son are in need of Rs.10,000/- per month as subsistence allowance and Rs. 5,000/- per month for expenses on clothes, cosmetics and medical care etc. 3. The case of the husband –O. P. No. 2, as per his show cause filed before the learned Court below, is that the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. He has denied for demanding any dowry of Rs. 2.00 Lakh and also denied for taking any dowry amount at the time of marriage. However, the opposite party no. 2 admitted that the petitioner no. 1 is his wife and the petitioner no. 2 is his son. The O. P. No. 2 has further taken plea that there is no 2025:JHHC:26744 4 dispute between the parties and as such, there was no question of Panchayati. He stated that he had neither ousted the petitioner no. 1 from her matrimonial home nor any such instances has taken place, rather she has fell down during her household work and got treated for the same, but on the instigation of her father, the petitioner has filed false criminal case against him and his relative and for which they are on bail. The petitioner is living in her Naihar on her own will and despite repeated request made by the opposite party no. 2, she has not been returned. He claimed to be earning Rs. 4,800/- per month only by doing job of salesman since last six (6) years in R. Electronics, Durgapur. Thus the opposite party no. 2 is a poor man while the petitioner belongs to a rich family and the opposite party no. 2 is still ready to keep and maintain both the petitioners with full honour and dignity. 4. Although notice was issued earlier vide order dated 16.08.2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Subhash Chand as then His Lordship was), but the opposite party no. 2 did not appear on 13.09.2023, rather one Ms. Arti Kumar, Advocate submitted that she has to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and prayed for serving of the copy of this Criminal Revision Petition along with other relevant documents upon her. However, still no vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 even on 11.10.2023, none had appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and vide order dated 11.10.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Subhash Chand as then His Lordship was), has held that service of notice is deemed sufficient as the notice has been served to the opposite party no. 2 in person. From perusal of the service report dated 11.08.2023 sent by Madurima Goswami, Judge In-charge, Nezarath, Civil Court, Durgapur In-charge enclosing the copy of the report of the 2025:JHHC:26744 5 process server, it has been informed that notice has been served upon the Binay Barnwal i.e. the opposite party no. 2 personally and notice has been received by the opposite party no. 2 himself on 10.09.2023. Thus, it is evident that despite having personal service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 on 10.09.2023 and even after appearance of his counsel Ms. Arti Kumari before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2023, the opposite party no. 2 deliberately avoided from appearing in this case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State . However, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the learned Court requires modification because both the petitioners have been granted a meagre maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner no. 1, wife and Rs. 1,000/- to petitioner no. 2, minor children and thus, the learned Court below has given only Rs. 3,500/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly calculated the monthly income of the O. P. No. 2 as Rs. 9867.26 per month on the basis of minimum wages @ Rs. 379.51 per day by treating him as doing clerical work. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs. 1.00 Lakh [Rs. 1,00,000/-] per month from his wholesale and retail grocery shop. Further the petitioner no. 1-wife has been ousted from the matrimonial home with her minor son i.e. petitioner no. 2 due to non-fulfillment of dowry of Rs. 2.00/- Lakh and even Panchayati was held on 08.11.2019, but the petitioner did not agree. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 was examined as P.W.-1, Sangam Kumari @ Sangam Barnwal and she has fully supported her case. Even her witnesses P.W.-2, Anil Kumar 2025:JHHC:26744 6 Gupta and P.W.-3, Sunil Kumar Gupta have also fully supported the case of the petitioners. It is submitted that even the opposite party no. 2 i.e. her husband has produced two witnesses, but their evidences are not reliable and hence, the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the learned Court below may be modified and the maintenance amount may be enhanced from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the petitioners. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that the learned Court below has properly appreciated the evidence of the petitioner no. 1 and her witnesses and has rightly passed the maintenance amount. It is submitted that this is a case of enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 3,500/- per month to Rs. 15,000/- per month and as such, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned order and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It appears that the present Criminal Revision has been filed on 02.02.2023. Then notice was issued upon the opposite party no. 2 on 16.08.2023 and the opposite party no. 2 had appeared on 13.9.2023 through one Ms. Arti Kumar, learned counsel. However, when the case was listed on 11.10.2023, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Thereafter vide order dated 11.10.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Subhash Chand as then His Lordship was) of this Court, has held that service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 is deemed sufficient. 10. Thereafter on 08.11.2023, the Criminal Revision 2025:JHHC:26744 7 was admitted and then vide order dated 10.07.2024, the Co- ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra as then His Lordship was) of this Court had given one more opportunity to the opposite party no. 2 to appear, but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 11. It appears that the petitioners in support of their cases got examined three witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 is Sangam Kumari @ Sangam Barnwal i.e. the petitioner no. 1, (ii) P.W.-2 is Anil Kumar Gupta i.e. the father of the petitioner no. 1 and (iii) P.W.-3 is Sunil Kumar Guptai.e. the Uncle of the petitioner no. 1. However, no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioners. 12. It appears that the opposite party no. 1 in support of his cases got examined two witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W.-1 is Madhumita Barnwal i.e. Sister of the opposite party no. 2 and (ii) O. P.W.-2 is Binay Burnwal i.e. the opposite party no. 2 himself. 13. However, no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in support of his Income. 14. Thereafter the learned Court below has directed the O. P. No. 2 to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner no. 1 i.e. wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2, minor son total Rs. 3,500/- per month. 15. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.-1, Sangam Kumari @ Sangam Barnwal i.e. the petitioner no. 1, it would appear that she is the wife of the opposite party no.2 and she was married with the opposite party no. 2 on 04.06.2015 and she has 2025:JHHC:26744 8 given birth of a child, which is aged around four and half year and she has been ousted from her matrimonial home for non fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 2.00/- Lakh She has claimed maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 5,000/- per month of her minor son i.e. total Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, during cross-examination, she has stated that her husband got ousted her from matrimonial home in the year 2019. She has also instituted a case of dowry and torture against the opposite party no. 2. However, she has not seen any paper with regard to income of her husband. She stated that her father is doing business and maintaining her and she has no source of income. She has also shown ignorance as to whether, her husband had instituted any case upon her or not ? She is unaware of the 2nd marriage of her husband. However, she stated that her husband is running business of wholesale and retail grocery shop. She has gone to the shop of her husband, however, she has not seen the Trade License. She denied the suggestion that her husband is not running business and doing work in R. Electronics and is earning Rs. 4,800/- per month. Thus, P.W.-1, Sangam Kumari @ Sangam Barnwal has fully supported her case and there is nothing in her cross- examination to discredit her evidence. She has further asserted that her husband has got wholesale and retail grocery shop, though she has not seen the Trade License. 16. P.W.-2 is Anil Kumar Gupta i.e. the father of the petitioner no. 1 and stated during his evidence that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 04.06.2015 and thereafter she went to her matrimonial home. However, his son in-law abused and tortured his daughter and used to demand of Rs. 2.00/- Lakh and finally 2025:JHHC:26744 9 his daughter was ousted from her matrimonial home on 13.11.2019 by his son in-law and then he is maintaining his daughter. He asserted that his son-law i.e. opposite party no. 2 has got wholesale and retail grocery shop and three persons worked under him and his son in-law is earning Rs. 1.50/- Lakh per month. Even her son –law is having a four wheeler vehicle. However, his daughter does not do any work and she has no source of income. 17. This witness was examined by the learned Court below himself and who stated that his son-law and father of the son in-law used to sit on the grocery shop and his son in-law is alone brother. However, he admitted that the case has been instituted against his son in-law for dowry and torture. He has shown unawareness for institution of any case upon his daughter. However, he had gone to the shop of his son-law several times, but he has no trading license. Thus, P.W.-2, Anil Kumar Gupta has also supported the prosecution case. 18. P.W.-3 is Sunil Kumar Gupta i.e. the Uncle of the petitioner no. 1 and he has also supported the case as stated by the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. However, he also stated that he had gone to the shop of the son in-law Binay Barnwal several times, but he has not seen his Trade License. He denied the suggestion that his son in-law is doing job in R. Electronics at Durgapur. Thus, P.W.-3, Sunit Kumar Gupta has also supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. 19. However, so far as the evidence of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, O.P.W.-1, Madhumita Barnwal i.e. Sister of the opposite party no. 2 and who has admitted the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 and admitted that one son is born out of their marital wedlock. However, since 2025:JHHC:26744 10 November, 2019, they are living separately. She further claimed that opposite party no. 2 is working in R. Electronics and is earning Rs. 4,800/- per month. She asserted that the petitioner no. 1, Sangam Kumari Gupta @ Sangam Barnwal is giving private tuition to 50-60 boys and doing spice business and is earning Rs. 1.5 Lakh per month and she wants to live in the house of her father and hence her claim is wrong. 20. During cross-examination, she stated that she learnt about tuition of the petitioner no. 1, Sangam Kumari Gupta @ Sangam Barnwal from her customer, but she does not know the name of the said customer. She admitted that the petitioner no. 1 is 12th Pass and her brother is B.A. Pass. She admitted that her father his grocery shop in the village. She denied the suggestion that her brother is running wholesale and retail grocery shop and is earning RS. 1.5 Lakh per month. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence OPW-1, it is evident that she is an interested witness and she has claimed that she learnt from the customer of the petitioner no. 1 that she is giving tuition to 50-60 boys and doing spice business, but she could say the name of her customer from where she learnt this fact. Thus, the evidence of OPW-1 is not believable. 21. O. P.W.-2 is Binay Burnwal i.e. the opposite party no. 2 himself and who admitted that the petitioner no. 1, Sangam Kumar Gupta @ Sangam Banwal is his wife and the petitioner no. 2, Vishwajeet Barnwal is his son. However, his wife had left her matrimonial home on 13.11.2019 with all articles without assigning any reason. He is doing job in R. Electronics, Durgapur and is getting salary of Rs. 4,800/- per month. He claimed that the petitioner no. 1 is giving private tuition to 50-60 boys and is doing business of spice and is earning Rs. 1.00/- per month. 2025:JHHC:26744 11 However, during cross-examination, he admitted that although his wife along with her son is living in her Naihar since November, 2019, but he has not given any amount till date for their maintenance. He stated that one Pralay Sen is the Owner of the said R. K. Electronics, however, he could bring the said Pralay Sen i.e. the Owner of R. K. Electronics as a witnesses before the Court. He is not aware that as to whether his son is going to school or not, who is aged around six (6) years. He admitted that the wife-Sangam Kumari Gupta @ Sangam Barnwal has instituted a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against him. 22. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of OPW-2, it is evident that he has also taken ornamental plea for doing work in R. K. Electronics, but has not filed any job paper to working in the said R. K. Electronics since 6-8 years ago and is earning Rs. 4,800/- from the said R. K. Electronics. Thus, evidence of OPW-2 is also not believable. 23. It appears that the learned Court below has observed that the opposite party no. 2 is doing clerical work and he has filed affidavit in respect of asset and liability that he is matriculate and as such he is doing Clerical Work and is earning Rs. 379.51 per day and Rs. 9867.26 per month as per notification of the Jharkhand Government dated 01.04.2021, the learned Court below has also held that the opposite party no. 2 is admitted to earning Rs. 4,800/- per month as staff of R. Electronic, Durgapur, but he has not filed any affidavit. There is tendency in the maintenance case to conceal the income on behalf of the husband. The petitioners have also filed supplementary affidavit by enclosing the photograph of the grocery shop of the opposite party no. 2, but the same cannot be looked into as it was not the part of the record. However, this 2025:JHHC:26744 12 Court finds that the opposite party no. 2 has not denied the specific assertion made by the petitioner no. 1 in her application under Section 125 of the CrPC. The petitioner no. 1 while examined as P.W.-1, Sangam Kumari @ Sangam Barnwal has stated that she was married with the opposite party no.2 and she has given birth of her son namely Vishwajeet Barnwal and her husband is having wholesale and retail shop of grocery. Even during cross-examination at para-16, she has stated that her husband has got wholesale and retail grocery shop, but the same has not been considered by the learned Court below. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.-2, Anil Kumar Gupta i.e. the father of the petitioner no. 1 and who has also supported the case and has stated that the opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the grocery shop and paying Income Tax. 24. From scrutinizing the evidence of both the sides, it is evident that relationship between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no.2 i.e wife and husband is admitted. Even the relationship of the petitioner no. 2 and the OPW-2 as the son and the father is admitted. It is further evident that the petitioner no. 1 is living separately since November, 2019 and the opposite party no. 2 has not given any amount for their maintenance and for their survival and for their proper care. 25. It is evident that the opposite party no. 2 is able bodied persons and even the OPW-1 is admitted that his father has grocery shop in the village. It has also come in the evidence that the O. P. No. 2 is only son of his parents and has got two sisters. 26. It is well settled from the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and children. 27. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and 2025:JHHC:26744 13 Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, which are as follows:- “Para-77:- The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-78:- The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79:- In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. Para-80:- On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112:- In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] , the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. 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 2025:JHHC:26744 14 Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of 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 bounden 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.” Para-113:- It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 28. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para-56, 59, 60 and 61 which are as follows:- “Para-56:-Similarly, in Tanushree & Ors. v A.S.Moorthy, the Delhi High Court was considering a case where the Magistrate’s Court had sine die adjourned the proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that parallel proceedings for maintenance under the D.V. Act were pending. In an appeal filed by the wife before the High Court, it was held that a reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act indicates that while considering an application u/S. 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court would take into account an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force. The mere fact that two proceedings were initiated by a party, would not imply that one would have to be adjourned sine die. There is a distinction in the scope and power exercised by the Magistrate under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and the D.V. Act. With respect to the overlap in both statutes, the Court held : (SCC Online Del para 5) “5. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act further shows that the two proceedings are independent of each other and have different scope, though there is an overlap. Insofar as the overlap is concerned, law has catered for that eventuality and laid down that at the time of consideration of an application for grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the 2025:JHHC:26744 15 maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken into account.” (emphasis supplied) Para-59:- In Sudeep Chaudhary v Radha Chaudhary25 the Supreme Court directed adjustment in a case where the wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and under HMA. In the Section 125 proceedings, she had obtained an order of maintenance. Subsequently, in proceedings under the HMA, the wife sought alimony. Since the husband failed to pay maintenance awarded, the wife initiated recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be adjusted against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings under HMA, and was not to be given over and above the same. Directions on overlapping jurisdictions Para-60:- It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. Para-61:- To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.” 2025:JHHC:26744 16 29. It appears that the learned Court below has taken the affidavit of the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner no. 1 has shown in Column -J by showing the income of the opposite party no. 2 of Rs. 1.00/-Lakh, but it was not supported by any documents. Similarly the opposite party no. 2 has also filed affidavit of his assets and liabilities and in Column- F, he has shown his income of Rs. 4,800/- per month as staff of R. Electronics, Durgapur, but he had neither adduced in respect of the same nor got Employer examined in the matter. The learned Court below has taken the view that none of the parties of this case are fair enough on the aspect of the income of the opposite party no. 2 by way of adducing any cogent documentary evidence. Thereafter, the learned Court below relied upon the Column-J of the affidavit of the O. P. No. 2 in which he claimed to be Matriculate and held that he is capable to do any clerical work and presumed his income as Rs. 379.51/- per day and Rs. 9867.26/- as monthly income as per notification of the Jharkhand Government dated 01.04.2021 and fixed the income of the opposite party no. 2 as Rs. 9867.26/- per month. 30. The learned Court below has committed grave error by fixing the income of the opposite party no. 2 as Rs. 9867.26/- per month. The learned Court below has not taken any adverse inference against the opposite party no. 2 for not producing any documentary evidence of his evidence and even for earning Rs. 4,800/- per month from the job of R. Electronics. 31. The learned Court below could have called for the passbook or any documents from the opposite party no. 2 to prove his assertion. Moreover, the fixation of monthly income of the opposite party no. 2 as Rs. 9867.26/- per month is also wrong 2025:JHHC:26744 17 and illegal in view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is able bodied persons and he is duty bound to maintain his wife and children. 32. It is evident that the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month are too low for survival of a wife and for a child with regard to his maintenance and study. Opposite Party No. 2 has also admitted that his father has a grocery shop in the village. 33. This Court finds that the learned Court below was not powerless in ascertaining the income of the husband and the learned Family Court has wide power to ascertain the income of the husband or any other persons by using the State Machinery, not only within its territorial jurisdiction. 34. There is general tendency in the maintenance cases and also in the matter of matrimonial dispute that the parties conceal their real income and they do not express it unless they are Government Servant or otherwise their income is visible. 35. In view of discussion made, hereinabove, this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 17.12. 2022 passed by Shri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar in Original Maintenance Case No. 18 of 2020 by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month for the petitioner no. 1 i.e. wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month for the petitioner no. 2, (minor son) and the opposite party no. 2 is directed to pay the maintenance amount from the date of filing the Petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of three (3) months from the receipt of the copy of this order. 36. Department of Women, Child and Welfare has floated Maiya Samman Yojana for grant of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the 2025:JHHC:26744 18 Woman at the age of 18 to 50 years of age and Government has claimed that Forty Five (45) Lakh beneficiaries have been included. 37. However, petitioner no. 1 will also be extended the benefit of Maiya Samman Yojana in the State of Jharkhand, if not being paid to her till date and the State Authorities particularly the Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to grant benefit of Maiya Samman Yojana. The petitioner no. 1 should approach the Competent Authority to include her name in the said Maiya Samman Yojana Scheme and the Competent Authority of the concerned District i.e. Deoghar District is also directed to include the name of the petitioner no. 1 for availing the benefits of Maiya Samman Yojana. 38. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2023 is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/