2025:JHHC:26743 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 273 of 2023 …. 1. Papiya Saha, aged about 47 years, w/o Nikhilesh Saha, D/o Late Santanu Bose, resident of Qtrs. No. G/134, Sector-19, Rourkela-5, PO & PS- Sector 19, District-Sundergarh (Odisha), PIN-769005 2. Rudra Saha @ Dhanisthar Rudra Saha(Minor Daughter) aged about 09 years, D/o Nikhilesh Saha, resident of Qtrs. No. G/134, Sector-19, Rourkela-5, PO & PS- Sector 19, District-Sundergarh (Odisha), PIN-769005 …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nikhilesh Saha, aged about 55 years, son of Late Nepal Saha, R/o Christan Toli, PO & PS- Goilkera, District- West Singhbhum …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Ms. M. M. Pal. Senior Advocate Ms. Shabana Parween, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate …… C.A.V. Judgment Pronounced on 29/08/2025 This Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 02.12. 2022 passed by Shri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2021 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed and direction has been given to the husband- opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2, Rudra Saha @ Dhanisthar Rudra Saha (till her marriage) i.e. total Rs. 4,500/- 2025:JHHC:26743 2 per month from the date of application i.e. 10.03.2021 and ordered to be paid the regular maintenance for each month by 10th day of each succeeding month and dues arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid in 20 installments in addition to regular maintenance amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month. 2. The petitioners had filed Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2021 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa against the Opposite Party No.- 2, husband of the Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner No. 2, for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha is the legally married wife of the O.P. No. 2 and their marriage was solemnised on 06.02.2014 as Hindu Vedic custom at Gurukul Vedic Ashram Vedvyas, Rourkella, Dist. Sundergarh and subsequently their marriage got registered by Registrar of Marriage, Executive Officer, Rourkella Municipality & marriage registration certificate dated 14.02.2014 was also issued. After their marriage she was taken to her matrimonial home at Goilkera, Dist. West Singhbhum and she started residing with her husband (O.P. No. 2), mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. At the time of solemnization of the marriage, the O.P. No. 2 was given a cash of Rs. 2.00 Lakh (Rs.2,00,000/-), a Godrej Almirah, Fridge, double bed wooden Dewan, Cooler, alna boxes, household utensils of Rs. 35,000/- for their happy marriage life but in spite of that the O.P. No. 2 started torturing the petitioner no. 1 relating to demand of more dowry and he including his family members started demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- by cash and when the petitioner no. 1 showed her inability to fulfil their demand, the O.P. No. 2 and his family members started torturing the petitioner no. 1 both physically and mentally in different ways time to time and again and again. The 2025:JHHC:26743 3 O.P. No. 2 used to come at Rourkella-5, Sector 19, Dist. Sundargarh (Odisha) for 10 to 15 days and there also she was being assaulted by the O.P. No. 2 for non-payment of their demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Out of their wedlock, one female child namely Rudra Saha @ Dhanistha Saha was born on 21.04.2014. However, this petitioner no. 1 was driven out by the O.P. No. 2 and his family members by assaulting her mercilessly on 12.04.2017 and as a result of which she was constrained to take shelter in her sister's house (Mahua Bose) along with minor daughter and then they became the burden on her sister. Before that this petitioner no. 1 many times returned resided at her matrimonial house at Goilkera but each and every time after some days they used to misbehave with her, assaulted and gave her mental torture and for which numbers of time she also informed the police station of Goilkera and made complaint about the same. Even in number of times, the Officer In-charge tried to solve the matter by calling her husband in the local police station and tried to convince her husband but ultimately even in spite of her all efforts and the efforts of all well wishers it was not possible for the conduct of her beside he married to an another girl and started leaving with her at Goilkera and thus husband along with his family members have jointly committed various crimes under the provisions of I.P.C. It is submitted that her husband is a businessman and he is earning about Rs. 1.00 Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/-) per month from his wholesale poultry business and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from his Hotel business per month i.e. total Rs. 1.50 Lakh (Rs. 1,50,000/-) per month. She also stated that she is totally unemployed and is unable to maintain herself along with her minor daughter who is a school going children. Besides this petitioner no. 1 has heart problem and sometimes she becomes ill and accordingly prayed for a 2025:JHHC:26743 4 direction upon the O.P. No. 2 to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner no. 1 for herself and for her minor daughter as she can not maintain herself and her school going minor daughter. 4. On notice, her husband i.e. opposite party no. 2 had appeared and filed his show cause by stating that the petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable though the opposite party no. 2 has admitted his marriage with the petitioner no. 1. He also admitted that their marriage was solemnized on 06.02.2014 as per Hindu Vedic Custom at Gurukul Vedic Ashram Vedvyas, Rourkella. He also admitted that their marriage was registered on 14.02.2014. He also admitted that after the said marriage the parties started living in Goelkera as husband and wife. But soon after the marriage the applicant left the house of the O. P. No. 2 and went to Roukela without informing anything to the O. P. No. 2. Thereafter the Applicant came in the month of June, 2014 and she again came back to the house of the O. P. No.-2 in the month of June, but she did not stay in the house of the O. P. No.- 2 rather in the evening she returned back to Rourkela without any reason and without intimating anything to the O. P. No.- 2 or to any of the family member of the O. P. No.- 2. Thereafter she used to come to Goelkera but always she used to return back to Rourkela on the same day in the evening. The applicant lastly came to the house of the O. P. No.- 2 in the month of January, 2016 and thereafter, she never came back. It is stated that the acts of the Petitioner No.- 1 created doubt in the mind of the O. P. No.- 2 and the O. P. No.- 2 made an enquiry in the month of April, 2016 and it was revealed that at the time of marriage the Petitioner No. 1 was already married to one Birendra Sharma son of Brijlal Sharma , resident of Village 2025:JHHC:26743 5 and PO Verka, Dist.- Amritsar, Punjab presently residing at Qtr. No. B/158, Sector -15, Rourkela 3, PS Sector 15, District- Sundargarh, Odisha and the Applicant had two daughters namely Madhushree Sharma and Madhumita Sharma with her first husband Birendar Sharma. The daughters are aged 12 and 10 years respectively. It was also revealed to the O.P. No.- 2 that the elder daughter of the Applicant namely Madhushree has been given in adoption to the sister of the Applicant Mahua Bose D/O Santanu Bose, resident of Kalighat, Kolkata 26 P.S. Kalighat Dist. Howrah (W.B.) at present residing at Qtr No. B/183, Sector 16, Rourkela-3 P.S. Sector 15. A deed of adoption was also executed between the applicant along with her husband with the sister of the applicant on 05.04.2013 and the same was registered in the office of the registrar at Panpose. It is stated that on further enquiry the O.P. No.- 2 came to know that after her marriage the Petitioner No.- 1 gave birth to a female child on 21.04.2014 ie. after two months of the aforesaid marriage with the O.P. and it is not possible after the two month marriage the child was born by this wedlock. It is stated that he and his family members never assaulted the Petitioner No.- 1 and she left the house of the O.P. No.- 2 on her own and now she is residing with her sister at Rourkela. Furtherance to this, her First husband is also residing at Rourkela and the elder daughter of the Petitioner No.- 1 is also working at present at Rourkela. The Petitioner No.- 1 in fact filed a complaint at Rourkela police station and the police officials called the OP No.- 2 where it was found the OP No.- 2 was cheated by the applicant (i.e. the petitioner) as the petitioner was already married prior to her marriage with the O. P. No. 2. It is stated that the O.P. No.- 2 learnt about the aforesaid 2025:JHHC:26743 6 marriage in the month of April 2016 and the fraud played upon the O.P. No.- 2 has been discovered. It is wrongly submitted by the Petitioner No.- 1 that the O.P. No.- 2 is a wholesaler of poultry business but in fact the O.P. No.- 2 has a small Chicken shop at village Goilkera from which he earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12, 000/- per month. It is stated that the daughter of the Petitioner No.- 1 was born just after 2 months of marriage and as such biologically it is not possible that a child can be born just after 2 months of marriage. Hence the claim of maintaining the daughter of the Petitioner No.- 1 is denied by the answering O. P. No.- 2. It is stated that the amount claimed by the petitioner no. 1 is lofty and fanciful. On the other hand, the petitioner is under the liability of maintaining his old mother and family members who are directly dependent upon him for their survival and needs. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners 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 learned court below has wrongly appreciated the case and the law and thereby came to erroneous conclusion in the case maintenance for both the petitioner instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month. It is submitted that learned court below did not pay any heed towards the fact that the petitioners are in need at least of Rs. 35,000/- per month as maintenance allowance instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance. It is submitted that it is very difficult for petitioners to meet their expenses per month by Rs. 4,500/- only. It is submitted that while living separately, the 2025:JHHC:26743 7 petitioner no. 1 and her daughter should have been granted maintenance amount which could meet their basic necessity of life and also allow them to live according to the status of O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that in view of the facts mentioned above, the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Family Court may be set aside/modified as the same is illegal, improper and against the provisions of law. It is submitted that learned court below has decided the amount of maintenance without any basis rather on the basis of the affidavit filed by the O.P. No. 2 which is contrary to the record. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order the learned court has failed to appreciate that the O.P. No.- 2 has solemnized her second marriage without any divorce order. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that during the lifetime of the 1st wife, the 2nd marriage is illegal, and his proposal to live with two wives in his house is unprecedented and most unbecoming. It is submitted that the learned court below has decided the maintenance amount (meagre amount) without considering the details of the movable and immovable property of the O.P. No.- 2 certified by the Circle Officer and hence the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and the Criminal Revision No.-273 of 2023 may be allowed. 8. 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 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 counsel 2025:JHHC:26743 8 for the State has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court and as such, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has herself deserted the opposite party no. 2 and has not residing in her matrimonial home. It is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly concluded that the petitioner no. 1 has performed 2nd marriage with the opposite party no. 2 and hence, the learned Court below has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are not reliable and they have been given exaggerated version and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 10. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 11. It transpires that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Papiya Saha i.e the petitioner no. 1, (ii) P.W. 2 is Brinda Saha i.e. the neighbour of the petitioner no. 1. 12. It transpires that three witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W.1 is Omnath Prasad i.e. brother of the O.P. No.2, (ii) O.P.W.2 is Mira Sarkar i.e. sister of O.P. No. 2) and (iii) O.P.W.-3 is Nikhilesh Saha i.e. O.P. No. 2 and husband of the petitioner. 13. Neither any documents have been filed by the petitioner no. 1 nor any documents have been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2. 2025:JHHC:26743 9 14. It transpires that the learned Court below after appreciating the evidence of both the sides, has assessed the income of the O. P. No. 2 as Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month merely as per the disclosure of assets and liability on affidavit filed by the O. P. No. 2 and also income admitted by the O. P. No. 2 in Para- 9 of his cross-examination while examined as O. P.W.-3. 15. It further reveals that the learned Family Court has held that the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha got divorced from her previous husband Birendra Sharma on 26.04.2008 on the basis of compromise. However, learned Court below has directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2, Rudra Saha @ Dhanisthar Rudra Saha (till her marriage) i.e. total Rs. 4,500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 10.03.2021. Hence, the appreciation of the evidence of the parties is required. 16. P.W.1 is Papiya Saha i.e the petitioner no. 1 herself and who stated during her evidence that she has performed marriage with her husband on 06.02.2014 at Gurukul Vaidik Aashram, Vedvyas, Rourkela, District- Sundergarh, Orissa and she again performed Court Marriage before the Registrar on 14.02.2014. However, she admitted in para- 7 of her evidence that she has given birth to daughter on 21.04.2014, which was named as Dhanistha Rudra Saha. However, she has been ousted from her matrimonial home. She also claimed that O. P. No. 2 is not maintaining them and not taking any interest in the study and maintenance of her child. She claimed that opposite party no. 2 is a businessman and is having two poultry farm and one is 2025:JHHC:26743 10 wholesale poultry farm at Goilkera and other in the shape of Hotel at Christian Toli, Goilkera and her husband is earning Rs. 1.50/- Lakh per month. Show has shown desire to live with her husband. 17. However, during cross-examination, she admitted to have married with the O. P. No. 2 on 06.02.2014 and she has given birth to a daughter on 22.04.2014 and she was born after two months of her marriage. She also admitted to be married earlier and her 1st husband was Birendra Sharma and from whom she has one daughter. However, she has denied the suggestion that she got two daughters namely Madhushree Sharma and Madhumita Sharma from her 1st husband and her daughter Madhushree Sharma is aged around 20 years and she is doing job on Contract basis. She also stated that she had gone to the house of the opposite party no. 2, but she was not allowed to enter into his house and hence she was not living with the opposite party no. 2. She admitted to have given her daughter Madhushree Sharma in adoption to her sister Mahua Ghosh in the year 2013 on 16.04.2013 by adoption deed and he admitted for having two daughters in the said adoption deed. She denied the suggestion for concealment of fact being married earlier being the mother of two daughters from the opposite party no. 2. She is Inter pass and residing at Rourkella. She is not aware that as to where her first husband is living. She has denied the suggestion for living presently with her first husband. She admitted for not filing any paper with regard to income of the opposite party no. 2 before the Court. She admitted on affidavit before the Executive Officer, Panposh, Rourkella in which she has mentioned that she is an 2025:JHHC:26743 11 unmarried woman. She has submitted papers in Goilkerra P. S. against the family members of the opposite party no. 2 for demanding dowry by filing written application but she cannot say day and date, but the police had not instituted any case. She also stated that O. P. No. 2 has got one small shop of Chicken. 18. However, she denied the suggestion that the opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs. 10-12 thousands from the said chicken shop. She admitted to live separately from the opposite party no. 2 since the year 2017. She has not filed any case against the opposite party no. 2 for restitution of conjugal rights before any Court. She has also not instituted any case against her first husband for demanding maintenance amount. She denied the suggestion for performing marriage with the opposite party no. 2 by concealing the fact of earlier husband and children. 19. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1, Papiya Saha, it is evident that she has also concealed the fact of her first marriage from the opposite party no. 2. She also admitted that he has given birth to a girl child just after two months of her marriage i.e. on 21.04.2014, although the marriage was performed on 06.02.2014. In para- 23 of her cross-examination, she also admitted to have given her one daughter in adoption to her sister Mahua Bose and admitted for mentioning the fact of having two daughters in adoption deed dated 16.04.2013. Though she has denied suggestion in para-19 of her cross-examination that she has got two daughters namely Madhushree Sharma and Madhumita Sharma from her first husband-Birendra Sharma. Thus, P.W.-1, Papiya Saha has apparently concealed the fact of having two daughters from her first husband while performing her marriage with the opposite party no. 2. 20. P.W. 2 is Brinda Saha i.e. the neighbour of the 2025:JHHC:26743 12 petitioner no. 1 and who stated during her evidence that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was performed on 06.02.2014 at Gurukul Vaidik Aashram, Vedvyas, Rourkela, District- Sundergarh, Orissa and Court Marriage was performed before the Registrar on 14.02.2014. Surprisingly, she stated in para- 7 of her evidence that after performing marriage, the petitioner no. 1 has given birth to daughter on 21.04.2014, who was named as Dhanistha Rudra Saha. However. P.W.-2 also stated that the opposite party no. 2 has performed 2nd marriage with one Shivali Mandal in the year 2016 and who is living with her in his house at Christian Toli, Golailkerra whereas the opposite party no. 2 is not maintaining this petitioner. He also claimed that the opposite party no. 2 is a businessman having two poultry farm and is earning Rs. 1.50/- Lakh (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand) per month. She also stated that the petitioner no. 1 is entitled to get the entire expenses from the opposite party no. 2 at the time of delivery of her daughter. 21. However, during cross-examination, she admitted in para- 20 that the petitioner- Papiya Saha was married earlier and she wanted to clarify that the petitioner no. 1 has got one daughter from her first marriage and she has vaguely said the name of her first husband as Sharma instead of taking her full name. She also admitted that the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with the opposite party no. 2 was performed on 06.02.2014 and her daughter was born on 21.04.2014. She admitted that Madhu Sharma is the first daughter of the petitioner no. 1 and she is aged more than 18 years and she has been taken in adoption by Mahua Bose, who is the sister of Papiya Saha and she is a social worker and she is the president of Mahila Sammittee. She also could not state the day and date of demand of Toyata Car and money by the opposite party no. 2. She admitted to have not seen 2025:JHHC:26743 13 the opposite party no. 2 for performing 2nd marriage. She admitted that her husband is an Auto Driver and is earning Rs. 600-700/- per day. 22. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 2, Brinda Saha, it is also evident that she is admitted that though the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was performed on 06.02.2014, but she has given birth of her daughter Dhanistha Rudra Saha on 21.04.2014 i.e. just after two months of her marriage and she has vaguely stated about the name of 1st husband of the petitioner no. 1. Thus, P.W. 2, Brinda Saha is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be relied upon. 23. So far as the evidence of the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, O.P.W.1 is Omnath Prasad i.e. brother of the O.P. No. 2, and who stated that though the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was performed, but the petitioner no. 1 remained in the house of the opposite party no. 2 at Goilkera only for four months and her behaviour was very rude towards the opposite party no. 2 and his family members and she used to live most of her time at her Maike. He learnt from the opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner no. 1 was married from earlier and she was having two daughters. He asserted that both the daughters live with her first husband Birendra Sharma. He stated that the opposite party no. 2 has got one small poultry shop and is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. He also stated that opposite party no. 2 has an old aged mother and one unemployed brother. 24. During cross-examination, he admitted at para-17 that Papiya Saha is the first wife of the opposite party no. 2. He also admitted that the mother and one brother and 2nd wife of the opposite party no. 2 are residing presently in the house of the 2025:JHHC:26743 14 opposite party no. 2. However, he stated that the opposite party no. 2 got one daughter from his first wife, but he is not aware of her name and the said daughter is living with her mother in Rourkella. 25. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of O.P.W.1, Omnath Prasad, it is evident that he has tried to support the case of the opposite party no. 2, but at the same, he admitted that the opposite party no. 2 is keeping his 2nd wife in his house. 26. O.P.W.2 is Mira Sarkar i.e. younger sister of O.P. No. 2 and who stated that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was performed on 06.02.2014 and Court Marriage was performed on 14.02.2014. She claimed that the petitioner no. 1 resided in her matrimonial home only four months and she used to visit Rourkella to Goilkera time and again and suddenly from January, 2016, she came to Goilkera and left with all his articles. Thus, she lived only for four months with her brother. Later on, she learnt that the petitioner no. 1 was married earlier and she was having two daughters namely Madhushree Sharma and Madhumita Sharma aged around 22 years and 08 years respectively and her former husband was Birendra Sharma, who was living in Rourkella. He stated that the Petitioner no. 1 has cheated her brother by marrying with him. She claimed that the opposite party no. 2 has got one small poultry farm and is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. His brother is also maintaining her mother and her own brother. 27. During cross-examination, she asserted that her brother is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. However, his brother has got own house and wants to keep his Bhabhi. Thus O.P.W. 2, Mira Sarkar has also supported the case of the opposite party no. 2. 2025:JHHC:26743 15 28. O.P.W.-3 is Nikhilesh Saha i.e. O.P. No. 2 himself and husband of the petitioner no. 1 that he married with the petitioner no. 1 on 06.02.2014 as per the Hindu Customs and they again performed Court Marriage with her before the Registrar on 14.02.2014 and an agreement was also prepared on 15.02.2014. However, the petitioner no. 1 did not live in the house at Goilkera, rather she went to Rourkella in the evening on the same day. She used to visit Roukella without informing him and in the month of January, 2016, the petitioner no. 1 took all the articles and left the house and thereafter she never came to Goilkera. The petitioner no. 1 was married from earlier with one Birendra Sharma, who was the resident of village and post Bherka and District- Amritsar, State- Punjab and presently the said Birendra Sharma is working in Rourkella Steel Plant and he is living in Official Quarter at Rourkella Plant. He also stated that the petitioner no. 1 has got two daughters namely Madhushree Sharma and Madhumita Sharma of 12 years and 10 years respectively prior to her marriage and the petitioner no. 1 has given his elder daughter Madhushree Sharma in adoption to her sister Mahua Bose, who is living at Kolkata. He claimed that the petitioner no. 1 lived in her house for around four months only. The petitioner no. 1 has filed a complaint before the police and Roukella Police has found in its investigation that the petitioner no. 1 has performed marriage with the opposite party no. 2 by cheating him and she was married from earlier. He is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month and he is maintaining his old aged mother and his younger brother, who is an unemployed youth. 29. During cross-examination, he admitted to have seen divorce paper of the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha and her first husband -Birendra Sharma. He also admitted that he had 2025:JHHC:26743 16 performed marriage with the petitioner no. 1 alone and 10-12 female had attended from the side of the petitioner no. 1 and their marriage was performed at Gurukul Ashram and then marriage was registered before the Registrar. He admitted for keeping his wife at Goilkera. He claimed to be living in the house of his father, which consisted of four rooms. He also admitted to have performed 2nd marriage with one Shivali six years ago from the date of his deposition (deposition on 28.11.2022). However he also admitted that he has got one daughter from petitioner no. 1- Papiya Saha and her name is Dhanistha Rudra Saha and it will be nice, if she lives with him. He again admitted that he is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month and admitted for having two wives and one daughter. Thus the O.P. No.- 2 has also admitted that he has performed second marriage also. 30. It appears from the pleadings made in this Criminal Revision Application that earlier the opposite party no. 2 had filed Original Suit No. 28 of 2016 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner no. 1, but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 31. Thereafter the O.P. No.- 2, Nikhilesh Saha @ Nikhilesh Kumar Saha had challenged the said judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by filing F. A. No. 212 of 2017, but the said F. A. No. 212 of 2017 was dismissed on 10.12.2020 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench has further held that his 2025:JHHC:26743 17 daughter was born during continuance of a valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner has not been able to show that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when she could have been begotten Birth during marriage has been given a sanctimonious position. 32. This Court is surprised to see that although the First Appeal No. 212 of 2017 was dismissed on 10.12.2020 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter the petitioner no. 1 along with the petitioner no. 2 had filed Maintenance Case being Original Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2021 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., but neither the petitioner no. 1 during her evidence and also the evidence of her witnesses nor the opposite party no. 2 and his witnesses have stated any fact regarding the filing of Original Suit No. 28 of 2016 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and dismissal of First Appeal No. 212 of 2017 vide judgment dated 10.12.2020 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 33. This fact has been brought for the first time by the petitioner even in this Criminal Revision Application and not even stated by the petitioner no. 1 in her application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. 34. Thus, this Court finds that both the parties are guilty for supressing the material facts from each other before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court regarding pendency of the Original Suit No. 28 of 2016 vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa as well as the judgment dated 10.12.2020 passed in First Appeal No. 212 of 2017 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 35. It further reveals that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this 2025:JHHC:26743 18 Court has held that daughter born during the subsistence of marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 is valid. 36. However, the order sheet of the learned Court below does not reflect that the petitioner no. 1 filed any such petition on 16.09.2022 to call for report from the Circle Officer, Guilkera. As it is reflected that the Document enclosed in this Criminal Revision Application as Annexure-4 series i.e. application dated 21.09.2022 filed by the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha before the Circle Officer, Guilkera and Letter No. 341 dated 17.11.2022 sent by the Anchal Adhikari, Goilkera to the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha, were filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and as such, this Court cannot look into those documents as the documents, which were not filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, cannot be considered at this stage. 37. It has been held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2020 in F. A. No. 212 of 2017, at para-6, 7 and 8 as follows:- “Para-6:-We have conferred anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and taken note of the relevant pleadings and the evidence adduced by the appellant before the learned family court as borne out from the lower court records. We have also perused the impugned judgement. As per the case pleaded by the appellant before the learned family court, the respondent had suppressed the factum of her previous marriage at the time of entering into marriage with this petitioner and that she was pregnant by some other person at the time of her marriage with him since a child was born only two months after the marriage i.e. on 21.04.2014. However, a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings and evidence on record dispels both the contentions. The appellant himself has brought on record the adoption deed dated 2025:JHHC:26743 19 05.04.2013 executed by Birendra Sharma, the erstwhile husband of the respondent, the respondent Papiya Bose and the adoptive mother Mahua Bose i.e. unmarried sister of the respondent. By this adoption deed, the elder daughter of the respondent namely Madhushree Bose was given in adoption to Mahua Bose. The recital of the adoption deed shows that the marriage between Papiya Bose- the respondent and her erstwhile husband Birendra Sharma was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 26.04.2008 passed in divorce suit C.P. No. 251 of 2007. It therefore, cannot be said that the respondent, by not referring to her previous marriage with Birendra Sharma, had committed suppression of material facts while entering into marriage with this petitioner since the status of the respondent as a divorcee was that of an unmarried lady. There was no subsisting marriage in the eye of law at the time of entering into marriage with this petitioner. On this count therefore, the challenge necessarily has to fail. The learned family court rightly held so. Para-7:- So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, it is a fact admitted by the petitioner that a daughter was born only after two months of the marriage with the respondent i.e. on 21.04.2014. In this regard, it is proper to refer to section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act which is quoted hereunder: “112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy. – The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have begotten.” Para-8:- Evidently, the daughter was born during continuance of a valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and petitioner has not been able to show that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when she 2025:JHHC:26743 20 could have been begotten. Birth during marriage has been given a sanctimonious position and amounts to a conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child unless it is shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten. Therefore, the second ground raised by the appellant invoking section 12(1)(d) of the Act of 1955 is also not made out.” 38. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner no. 2, Dhanistha Rudra Saha was born during the subsistence of marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2. 39. Even the opposite party no. 2 has admitted that the petitioner no. 2, Dhanistha Rudra Saha may live in his house . 40. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has raised chastity of the petitioner by stating in his show cause that just after two month of his marriage, one girl child i.e. the petitioner no. 2 from the petitioner no. 1 was born and the opposite party no. 2 is not biological father of the opposite party no. 2. 41. Although the conduct of the petitioner no. 1 also does not appear to be satisfactory as because on the one hand she has clearly admitted during her evidence that she has given birth to a daughter only two months after her marriage with the opposite party no. 2 whereas she herself admitted during her cross- examination at para- 19 and 23 that she has two daughters namely Madhushree Sharma and Madhumita Sharma from her former husband Birendra Sharma mentioned in adoption deed dated 16.04.2013 i.e. much prior to solemnization of marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. 42. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has given findings against the opposite party no. 2, but in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and as such, this Court is constrained to go with the view of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as the 2025:JHHC:26743 21 present case relates to grant of maintenance case with regard to a daughter i.e the petitioner no. 2. 43. This Court is only taking lenient view in view of the fact that petitioner no. 1 is a married lady and the petitioner no. 2 is daughter of the petitioner no. 1 in light of the findings given by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 212 of 2017 vide judgment dated 10.12.2020. 44. It is well settled in the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and children. 45. 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 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. 2025:JHHC:26743 22 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.” 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.” 46. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the maintenance amount Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2, Rudra Saha @ Dhanisthar Rudra Saha is too low to maintain themselves and as such, this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 02.12. 2022 passed by Shri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Maintenance Case No. 10 of 2021 by enhancing the maintenance amount Rs. 2,500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month to petitioner no. 1, 2025:JHHC:26743 23 Papiya Saha and Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2, Rudra Saha @ Dhanisthar Rudra Saha (till she is married or gainfully employed) i.e. total Rs. 9,000/- per month. This order will be effective from the date of the passing of the order by this Court instead of the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioners. 47. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2023 is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. Therefore, it will be desirable that petitioner no. 1 shall 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 2025:JHHC:26743 24 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. 51. The petitioner no. 1, Papiya Saha and her daughter Rudra Saha @ Dhanisthar Rudra Saha will be entitled to the benefits of Health Schemes prevalent in the State of Jharkhand. 52. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/ A.F.R.