2025:JHHC:35982 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.366 of 2025 Abhijit Mukhopadhyay, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Basudeo Mukerjee, resident of Bhalagora, P.O.-Udaipur, P.S. Para, District Purulia, (West Bengal). … Petitioner Versus 1. Mousami Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay @ Chatterjee) W/O Abhijit Mukhopadhayay. 2. Aradhya Mukhopadhyay, D/O Abhijit Mukhopadhyay (aged about 10 years represented through her mother, Petitioner / O.P. no.1), both resident of Bhalagora, P.O.-Udaipur, P.S. Para, District Purulia, (West Bengal). Presently residing at Silli, P.O. & P.S.- Silli, District- Ranchi, (Jharkhand) 3. The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukharji, Advocate. Mrs. Sandhya Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Ray, APP For the OP No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate ------ 4/02.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite parties. 2. This Criminal revision has been preferred against part of the Judgment and order dated 24th of January 2025 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Ranchi, in Original Maintenance Case No.275 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife, Opposite Party No. 1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to O.P. No.2 from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2021 for maintenance of his wife and his daughter. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the marriage between the petitioner and OP No.1 was solemnized on 2025:JHHC:35982 2 19.02.2009 as per the Hindu Rituals. He submits that in due course of time, they were blessed with one child, who is aged about 14 years. He submits that O.P.-1 has instituted Original Maintenance Case No.275 of 2021 before the learned Family Court, Ranchi on 05.10.2021 alleging that at time of marriage, gift, cash, ornaments were given to the in-laws and after the marriage, she was living in the in-laws’ house. She has also stated in the petition that O.P. (petitioner herein) started beating almost on daily basis and she was forced to leave the house. He submits that all this has been asserted in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by O.P. No.1 before the learned Court and she also claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submits that the learned court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.3,000/- pm to his minor daughter w.e.f. filing of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., however the petitioner salary is only Rs.11,363/-. He submits in view of that the amount of maintenance is higher side and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. He also submits that O.P. No.1 has got no cause to live separately and in spite of that she is living separately, in view of that also, the wife is not entitled for maintenance. He however submits that the minor daughter is entitled for the maintenance. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside so far, the wife is concerned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that with 2025:JHHC:35982 3 cogent reason, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Court and only a sum of Rs.7,000/- maintenance amount has been allowed for the wife and minor daughter and in view of that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 submits that the wife along with minor daughter have been forced to leave the house as the in-laws and the petitioner have tried to set her on fire on 06.6.2021 at 6:15 pm, the respondent came and started assaulting her and also they poured kerosene oil upon her body and after that their daughter went outside and started crying and after arriving of nearby people, her in-laws left her and on 07.06.2021, petitioner forcibly dropped OP1 at her matrimonial home. In view of that he submits that the wife along with her minor daughter were forced to leave the matrimonial home. He also submits that the petitioner herein has filed a petition for judicial separation. He submits however the same has been dismissed for default. In view of that he submits that sufficient cause is there for not residing of Opposite parties along with the petitioner. He further submits that the learned court has taken into consideration other aspects of the matter. The petitioner was having Renault Duster Car and he is also doing mobile business and that has been proved in light of the transaction made in the account of the petitioner. He further submits in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has gone through the material 2025:JHHC:35982 4 available on record including the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and O.P. No.1 are husband and wife respectively. Marriage was solemnized on 19.02.2009. The learned Court has considered the oral and documentary evidences, which were marked in the proceeding. The Opposite Party No.1 was examined as PW-4, reiterated her case before the learned Court and has stated that her marriage was solemnized with Abhijit Mukherjee on 19th February 2009 and after marriage, she went to her in-law’s house, where she stayed in her in-law’s house for about two years. After which, her daughter was born. She narrated how the torture has started upon opposite party No.1. Petitioner herein has filed separation case, which proved that sufficient cause is there with the opposite party No.1 not to live along with the petitioner. She has also stated that they have tried to put her on fire by way of pouring kerosene oil and due to presence of the neighbours, they left her. Other PWs have supported the case of the wife. The petitioner herein was examined as DW-4 before the learned Court and he has also admitted the marriage. He has denied that he has mobile repair shop. He also denied that on 06.05.2021, at 6 pm, he assaulted his wife and tried to throw out of her house. On the quantum, he has stated that he is receiving a sum of Rs.11,363/- and he was working as contractual vocational teacher. He has stated that the car is belonging to his brother. However, he has purchased the same in his name. On the same line, the other witnesses have also supported the case of the petitioner. In view of the documents and exhibits, the learned Court has found that the salary 2025:JHHC:35982 5 was said to be of the petitioner is Rs.11,363/-. The learned Court has found that in the bank account of the petitioner continuously Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,800/- Rs.2500/- have been transferred by some persons, in view of that the learned Court has rejected the denial on the point of having another source of income by way of operating mobile phone shop or others. The petitioner has disclosed that the petitioner has received 0.69 acre of land as gift from his father, in view of that also the petitioner is having some income. The document and no chit of paper has been filed by the petitioner before the learned Court to suggest that the car in question was purchased by his brother. On the other hand, O.P. No.1 has produced the document of DTO with regard to the said car, where the name of the petitioner has bene indicated. In all these backgrounds, the learned Court has directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife-O.P. No.1 and minor daughter-O.P. No.2 respectively, that total comes to Rs.7,000/-. 7. In light of the above discussions and materials available on record, which has come in the impugned order of the learned Court, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. As such, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any are also disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 02.12.2025 R.Kumar Uploaded on 05.12.2025