2025:JHHC:23120 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 191 of 2025 …. Ramu Mahato, aged about 62 years, S/o Late Samar Mahato @ Late Ravi Mahato, R/o West Modidih Colliery, PO- Sijua Katras, PS- Katras, District- Dhanbad, at present permanent R/o Village- Dhawachita, PO & PS- Rajganj, District- Dhanbad …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ijlee Devi, aged about 57 years, W/o Ramu Mahato, R/o Dharjori, PO- Bhuli Nagar, PS- Baghmara, District- Dhanbad …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A. P. P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Ramchandra Sahu, Advocate …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT I.A. No. 1117 of 2025 04/16.06.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The instant I.A. No. 1117 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 238 days in filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 191 of 2025. 3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and also in view of the averments made in para- 4 to 14 of the instant I.A. No. 1117 of 2025 and taking lenient view, the delay of 238 days in preferring the instant Cr. Revision No. 191 of 2025 is, hereby, condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- before the office of JHALSA. 4. Thus, I.A. No. 1117 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. 2025:JHHC:23120 -2- Cr. Revision No. 191 of 2025 5. This Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad in M. Alteration Case No. 12 of 2022 by which the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- on the petition filed under Section 127 of Cr. P.C. by the opposite party no. 2 - Ijlee Devi. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the husband of the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has married with one Shankuntala Kumari and got four children from her. It is submitted that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 had been performed with Amit Mahato. It is submitted that the now the petitioner has retired and is not capable of paying Rs. 9,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and hence, the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the learned Court below may be set aside. 8. 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 this is a case of enhancement of 2025:JHHC:23120 -3- maintenance amount from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- only 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. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has got entered the name of 2nd wife Shankuntala Devi in his Service Record whereas the opposite party no. 2 is the 1st wife of the petitioner and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned judgment and as such, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 10. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 11. It appears from the impugned judgment that initially the opposite party no. 2 had filed M. P. Case No. 97 of 2004 against the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/-, which was allowed by the learned Court below. 12. It further appears that the order passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 01 of 2015, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and the said order had not been challenged by the petitioner before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and stood remained in tact as per the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. 13. It further appears from the deposition of the petitioner, 2025:JHHC:23120 -4- who has been examined as R. W.-I before the learned Court below that during cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that the opposite party no. 2 had instituted the Maintenance Case twenty (20) years ago and presently he is paying Rs. 8,000/- to the opposite party no. 2. It is also not denied in his show cause that the opposite party no. 2 is not his wife. He has admitted that he has not challenged the maintenance order and not filed appeal anywhere. The R.W.-1, who is the petitioner herein has also admitted before the learned Court that he has been shown as father of one Sujit Mahato, who is the son of the opposite party no. 2. Thus, the petitioner has admitted Sujit Mahato as his son. 14. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is taking the plea for the first time that the opposite party no. 2 is not his wife to whom he is paying maintenance amount since last twenty (20) years. 15. In view of discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in this Criminal Revision Application and hence, the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad in M. Alteration Case No. 12 of 2022 by which the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad, has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- on the petition filed under Section 127 of the Cr. P.C. by the opposite party no. 2 - Ijlee Devi is, hereby, upheld. 16. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2025 is dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/