2025:JHHC:35818 --1-- Criminal Revision No. 798 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 798 of 2025 ---- Amit Jaiswal @ Amit Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Alakh Niranjan Prasad, resident of village – Masihani, PO and PS – Chhatarpur, District – Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ruchi Kumari, aged about 25 years, wife of Amit Jaiswal, resident of village – Sareh Muhalla, PO and PS – Nagar Untari, District – Garhwa, Jharkhand, at present R/o Masihani, PO and PS – Chhatarpu, District – Palamau .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Sushma Aind, Advocate ---- 05/01.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original Maintenance Case No.20 of 2024 whereby the petition filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the opposite party No.2 has been allowed by the learned Court. 3. Mr. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband of opposite party No.2 and the marriage between them was solemnized on 27.02.2023 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife peacefully and with all dignity but she is not residing and in view of that the learned Court has wrongly passed the 2025:JHHC:35818 --2-- Criminal Revision No. 798 of 2025 order. He then submits that the amount has been allowed to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month by the learned Court which is also not in accordance with the principle of deciding the maintenance case. He next submits that the petitioner has also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. He also submits that the petitioner is not having such income in spite of that Rs.15,000/- per month has been allowed by the learned Court as maintenance and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband and he is bound to maintain his wife and the learned Court has given a cogent reason of passing such impugned order and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and opposite party No.2 are husband and wife respectively. Opposite party No.2 was examined as AW-1 before the learned Court and she has stated that in the matrimonial house only for one month she was allowed to live peacefully and thereafter the family members of the petitioner started demanding Rs.3,00,000/- and one car and they used to abuse and assault the opposite party No.2. She has also stated that in the morning of 05.05.2023 at about 7:00 AM, when O.P. No.2 was cooking food the in-laws family members tried to tie with a rope and they poured kerosene oil upon her. She has also proved the what’s app messages. She has also stated that opposite party owns agency of cement and iron rod as well as Asian Paints at Chhatarpur and the said business is being done from the 2025:JHHC:35818 --3-- Criminal Revision No. 798 of 2025 house itself which remained filled up with the articles and the opposite party earns about one crore annually from the business. 6. AW-2 and AW-3 have also supported the version of AW-1. The petitioner was examined as OPW-1 before the learned Court and he has also admitted the marriage and has stated that he is completely unemployed. OPW-2 was examined, who is the father of the petitioner and he has also supported the case of OPW-1. OPW-3 is said to be mother of OPW-1 and OPW-4 is the brother of OPW-1. 7. In view of above submission and the evidences, the learned Court has found that the marriage was solemnized on 27.02.2023 and the reason is said to be sufficient of leaving the matrimonial house in view of the fact that she was tied with the rope and they tried to set ablaze her by pouring kerosene oil. 8. The learned Court has found that although the statements have been made by AWs that opposite party owns wholesale agency of cement and iron rod as well as Asian Paints at Chhatarpur but no documentary proof regarding the business or income of the opposite party has been brought on record. 9. The learned Court has found that opposite party has mentioned in the show cause that the father and brother of opposite party No.2 had an evil eye on the property of the opposite party and they have demanded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the opposite party and in view of the statement made in the show cause the financial condition of the opposite party was found to be good by the learned Court and in view of that the learned Court has been pleased to allow the maintenance to the 2025:JHHC:35818 --4-- Criminal Revision No. 798 of 2025 tune of Rs.15,000/- per month to be paid to the petitioner. 10. The financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony or maintenance. The Court is required to examine the husband’s actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. The Court is required to consider the status of the parties, social and financial, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, qualification and employment status of the parties, independent income or assets owned by the parties, maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home, any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities, reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife and financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations and liabilities. 11. A sum of Rs.15,000/- has been only allowed as maintenance and in the show cause the opposite parties have stated that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was demanded by the family members of the opposite party and in view of that the financial condition was said to be good one by the learned Court. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this criminal revision petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 01.12.2025 Sangam/ Uploaded on