2025:JHHC:26743 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 824 of 2022 …. Gunjesh Kumar aged about 41 years son of Late Ravindra Kumar resident of Village- Kanhiya Chak, PO- Kanhiya Chak, PS- Parotta, District- Khagaria (Bihar) …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kavita Kumari wife of Gunjesh Kumar, daughter of Birendra Choudhary, resident of Qr. No. 25/1/1, Road No. 5, Bagbera Colony, PO+ PS-Bagbera, District- East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) 3. Saloni daughter of Gunjesh Kumar represented through her mother and natural guardian namely Kavita Kumari resident of Qr. No. 25/1/1, Road No. 5, Bagbera Colony, PO+ PS-Bagbera, District- East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) …… Opp. Parties ----- Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate …… C.A.V. Judgment Pronounced on 29/08/2025 The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2022 by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra No. 1, then learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner by affirming the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by Sri Pawan Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 300 of 2019 by which the petition dated 05.11.2019 filed by the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month (Rs. 1,500/- per 2025:JHHC:26743 2 month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to his minor daughter) from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of the case. 2. On the basis of the written complaint by Kavita Kumari and Saloni i.e the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No 3 respectively before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur Complaint Case No. 300/2019 was registered against the petitioner and others under section 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. It is stated that the marriage of the complainant-O. P. No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner Gunjesh Kumar on 18.06.2003 according to Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock the couple was blessed with a daughter who was born on 25.11.2009 and at present she is a student of NIT DAV School. It is stated that opposite party no.2, 3 and 4 in the complaint case are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. It is stated that at the time of marriage father of the complainant (i.e. the O. P. No. 2) spent Rs. 8,50,000/- in the marriage of the complainant which includes gold ornaments, utensils, cash etc. and after marriage complainant went to her matrimonial house and her husband was posted in Military Service and retired on 30.1.2018. It is further stated that the accused no.1 along with his family members always used to torture the complainant and when she conceived second time due to torture her 9 months foetus died in the womb. Thereafter the complainant started residing at Bagbera, Jamshedpur till 20.08.2018 and from 21.08.2018 till October 2018 the couple resided in Adityapur together in a rented house as accused no.1 (petitioner) started working as Security Guard in PEBCO, Gamharia. It is further stated that in the month of January, 2018 the accused no.1 went to Begusarai after assaulting the complainant for not giving birth to a male 2025:JHHC:26743 3 child and also got signature of the complainant forcibly on the blank paper. It is further stated that the accused no.1 (petitioner) had applied for cooking gas and cylinder also purchased 2 wheeler Scooty Activa on 27.09.2018 and he also booked flat in Adityapur in Hari Om Nagar on 27.03.2017 for which he used to force the father of the complainant to pay EMI. It is stated that her signature was taken on documents by keeping her in dark for sale of property in Begusarai. It is stated that after his retirement, the opposite party along with the petitioner shifted at Begusarai. It is stated that the complainant had to lodge the complaint in Bagbera police station for the atrocities done upon her therefore the accused no.1 shifted to Adityapur. It is stated that the petitioner i.e. her husband has received Rs.20,00,000/- after his retirement and presently getting pension of Rs.25,000/- and is also engaged as Security Guard and written complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 for several reliefs an claimed therein. 3. After issuance of notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause on 13.01.2020 denying the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and his family members. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and as such the same are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order are based on surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the Learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that there is no evidence on record to suggest whether the 2025:JHHC:26743 4 petitioner is in a position to pay the interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that Learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, Jamshedpur failed to appreciate that there is no evidence on record to ascertain the source of income of the petitioner. It is submitted that Learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, Jamshedpur failed to notice that the petitioner had never tortured the opposite parties rather he has purchased the property in the name of his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 at Begusarai but the opposite party no.2 does not wanted to live in her matrimonial house and always put pressure upon the petitioner to settle down at Jamshedpur due to which the present false case has been lodged against the petitioner and his family members by the opposite parties in order to put pressure upon him. It is submitted that learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, Jamshedpur failed to appreciate that the finding with regard to the income of the petitioner is adverse to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that Learned Court below failed to appreciate that the opposite party no.2 is working at Army Canteen, Jamshedpur and getting the monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is submitted that Learned Courts below without considering the aforesaid fact and condition of the petitioner passed the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2022 and order dated 19.10.2020 and hence the same are fit to be set aside and thus, Criminal Revision No. 824 of 2022 may be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court below and learned Trial Court are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to give maintenance to the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3, who are wife and daughter and no illegality has 2025:JHHC:26743 5 been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgment and order and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to give maintenance to the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3 and no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that witnesses have supported the case of O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3 and the petitioner was given several opportunities. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has fully considered the case of the parties and has directed to pay the interim maintenance amount to the petitioner of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 the minor daughter (i.e. total Rs. 4,000/-) which is a very meagre amount. It is submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Army Man and got Rs. 20.00 Lakh [Rs. 20,00,000/-] after his voluntarily retirement and is getting Rs. 25,000/- per month and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Records and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and Trial Courts and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides. 9. During pendency of this case several Criminal Revisions i.e Cr. Revision No. 824 of 2022, Cr. Revision No. 843 of 2024, Cr. Revision No. 303 of 2025, Cr. Revision No. 305 of 2025:JHHC:26743 6 2025, Cr. Revision No. 496 of 2024 and Cr. Revision No. 64 of 2025 were analogous with this case and in which, this Court has directed the State to file the schemes run by the State Government including Maiya Samman Yogena in favour of the women and children and respondents have filed several schemes in this case by filing their respective counter affidavits and enclosed the records. 10. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has filed complaint case being C/1 Case No. 300 of 2019 under Sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act on 30.01.2019 against the petitioner as well as her father in-law, mother in-law and married Nand. Thereafter the learned Court below has called for report from CDPO, Jamshedpur vide order dated 02.02.2019. Thereafter vide Letter No. 94 dated 15.04.2019, CDPO, Golmuri-cum- Jugsalai submitted D/R format enclosing the details of case of the opposite party no. 2 and some documents and photographs of Motorcycle, Jewellary etc. and some pay slip of the petitioner. 11. It reveals that the petitioner and others had appeared and filed their show cause on 13.01.2020 by refuting the charges and allegations made against them by the opposite party no.2. The petitioner has taken the plea that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to live with him. He also stated that he does work at Pebco Motors in any manner and the petitioner and his family members never visited at Jamshedpur or Adityapur. He has also taken plea that the learned Family Court, Khagaria vide Matrimonial Suit No. 06 of 2019 has passed the order under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the petitioner by directing the opposite party no. 2 (i.e. the wife of the petitioner) to reside with him. 12. The Complaint Case being C/1 Case No. 300 of 2019 2025:JHHC:26743 7 was allowed in her favour and her daughter by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,500/- to the opposite party no. 2-wife and Rs 2,500/- to her daughter i.e the opposite party no. 3. 13. It is well settled that the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. even if, the judgment of Restitution of Conjugal right has been passed in favour of the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 14. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another vide judgment dated 10.01.2025passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5896 of 2024), at para -27, 28, 29 and 30 as follows:- “Para-27:- Now, turning to the decisions of this Court on the point, in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat and another [(1996) 4 SCC 479], it was held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve the intention of the legislature and, therefore, the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife would not, by itself, defeat her right to maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. It was further observed that the mere ‘failure’ of the wife to live with her husband would not be sufficient to disentitle her from receiving maintenance from him, especially as the crucial word carefully chosen in the relevant provision is ‘refusal’. Para-28:- In Amrita Singh vs. Ratan Singh and another [(2018) 17 SCC 737], this Court held, on facts, that the plea of the husband that his wife had deserted him without reasonable cause and that he was ready to take her back was falsified by the fact that the wife was treated with cruelty and subjected to persistent demands for dowry, resulting in her being ousted from the matrimonial house, whereupon she was compelled to file a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC ending in the 2025:JHHC:26743 8 conviction of the husband and his father. The wife was held to have reasonable grounds not to join the husband, thereby entitling her to maintenance. Para-29:- Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non- compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Para-30:- Another contention that was urged before us is that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the Court seized of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings. This specious argument needs mention only to be rejected outright. No doubt, in Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi [(2004) 1 SCC 438], this Court held that a decision by a Criminal Court would not bind the Civil Court while a decision by the Civil Court would bind the Criminal Court. However, maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature and the reason for inclusion of the provisions dealing therewith in the Code of Criminal Procedure was clarified by the Law Commission of India in September, 1969. Significantly, as long back as in the 2025:JHHC:26743 9 year 1963, in Mst. Jagir Kaur and another vs. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court held that proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the precursor to Section 125 Cr.P.C., are in the nature of civil proceedings; the remedy, being a summary one; and the person seeking that remedy, ordinarily being a helpless person. Therefore, even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings.” 15. This is a case of merely granting of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the opposite party no. 2-wife and Rs 2,500/- to her daughter i.e the opposite party no. 3 and the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 are admitted. 16. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs Anil Kachwaha reported in 2014 (16) SCC 715 at para 7, 8 and 10 as follows:- “Para-7:- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant- wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. Para-8:- The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in 2025:JHHC:26743 10 Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10:-The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 17. It has been held in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in 2017 (14) SCC 200 at paragraph 15, as follows:- “Para 15:- The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-20152 awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95.527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of 2025:JHHC:26743 11 justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs 23.000 to Rs 20.000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son. 18. It has been held in the case of Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2020 (19) SCC 342, that even a wife who has been divorced on ground of desertion is entitled to claimed maintenance and it has been held at para 5 and 7 which are as follows:- “Para 5:- Thereafter, in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri this Court took a similar view: (SCCP 184, para 11) 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once a decree for divorce was passed against the respondent and marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end, the mutual rights. Duties and obligations should also come to an end. He pleaded that in this situation, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain a woman with whom all relations came to an end should also be treated to have come to an end. This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman, she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife. A woman after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was once her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her." “Para 7:- No doubt, as urged by Mr Debal Banerjee. Explanation II to Section 125 9 CrPC by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and, therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated as a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that event after divorce she is not 2025:JHHC:26743 12 willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of Mr Debal Banerjee.” 19. 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 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 2025:JHHC:26743 13 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.” 20. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and 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 2025:JHHC:26743 14 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 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.” 2025:JHHC:26743 15 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.” 21. It has been held in Kiran Tomar & Ors Vs State of Utter Pradesh & Another reported in 2022 live law (SC) 904 at paragraph 10 & 11, as follows:- “Para-10:- On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together. The two children are aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, and their needs have to be duly met.” “Para 11:- In this view of the matter, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Family Court on the basis of the reasoning which has been extracted above in the earlier part of this order.” 22. Thus, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court while passing Judgment the amount of maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month (Rs. 1,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to minor daughter. The order passed is a well discussed and reasoned order and speaking one and as such, no interference is required from this Court and the hence the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2022 by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra No. 1, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur upholding the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 300 of 2019 2025:JHHC:26743 16 by which the petition dated 05.11.2019 filed by the opposite party has been allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month (Rs. 1,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of the case is upheld. 23. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 824 of 2022 is dismissed, however, the arrear of maintenance amount due to the wife i.e. O. P. No. 2 and daughter i.e. O. P. No. 3 can be recovered by the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3 and the learned Court below is directed to take all possible coercive necessary steps in accordance with law for payment of maintenance amount due to the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3. 24. Before parting with this order, it will be useful to mention herein that Department of Women, Child and Welfare has floated Maiya Samman Yojana for grant of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the Woman between the age of 18 to 50 years of age and Government has claimed that Forty Five (45) Lakh beneficiaries have been included. 25. The Department of Family Welfare has also formulated various schemes such as grant of several Health Issues:- (i) Ayushman Bharat Jan Arogya Yogna of Five Lakh Rupees per family and also senior citizen, (ii) Ayushman Vay Vandana of Five Lakh per family per year, (iii) Mukhya Mantri Abua Swasthya Suraksha Yojna of Fifteen Lakh per family per year, (iv) Mukhya Mantri Gambhir Bimari Upchar Yojana for treatment above five lakh up to Twenty (20) Lakh for 21 defined diseases. 26. Therefore, it will be desirable that O. P. No. 2 shall also be extended the benefit of Maiya Samman Yojana in the State of 2025:JHHC:26743 17 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 O. P. No. 2 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 O. P. No. 2 for availing the benefits of Maiya Samman Yojana. 27. The O. P. No. 2, Kavita Kumari and her daughter i.e. O. P. No. 3 will be entitled to the benefits of Health Schemes prevalent in the State of Jharkhand. 28. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/ N.A.F.R.