2025:JHHC:33772 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.573 of 2024 1. Mandakinee aged about 38 years w/o Madhvendra Malviya, D/o Late K.C. Tripathi. 2. Kunj aged about 10 years S/o Madhvendra Malviya represented through his mother Mandakinee. Both are resident of Qr. No. 1/2/1, Road No. 1, Bagbera Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Madhvendra Malviya aged about 43 years s/o Babu Mani Malviya, R/o 180-K/4V, Ambedkar Marg, Rajrooppur, Allahabad, P.O. & P.S. & District- Prayagraj-2011001. … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Baibhav Gahlaut, Advocate. For the State : APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, Advocate ------ 10/12.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount allowed vide order 07.03.2024 passed in Maintenance (Alteration) Case No. 44 of 2022 passed by the learned Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners u/s 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount was allowed and monthly maintenance allowance vide order dated 15.07.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 240 of 2017 was enhanced only to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- for petitioner No.2 and further the Opposite Party No.2 was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed a petition being original maintenance case, which 2025:JHHC:33772 2 was numbered as Misc. Case No.240 of 2017. He then submits that O.P. No.2 has not appeared in that case and ex-parte order has been passed on 10.07.2018 and the O.P. No.2-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to Petitioner No.2. He next submits that that order has not been challenged by the O.P. No.2-husband and that has attended finality. He then submits that thereafter the petitioners have filed application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was numbered as Original (Alteration) Maintenance Case No.44 of 2022 to alter the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs.20,000/- in favour of petitioner No.2. He also submits that the learned Court by order dated 07.03.2024 has been pleased to alter the said amount to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. 4. He further submits that salary of O.P No.2 has reached to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- and in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129, 25% of the husband’s net salary would be required to be made by the learned Court, but that has not been done. He further submits that the learned court has also done an error by way of directing to pay the said amount w.e.f. the date of the impugned order and not from the date of filing of the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. He also submits that in light of Section 127 of Cr.P.C., the alteration order was required to be passed keeping in mind the status of living of both the sides. He then submits that once it has been proved that the net salary of the husband was reached 2025:JHHC:33772 3 to Rs.1,80,000/-, the learned Court has erred in allowing only a sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. On these grounds he submits that the impugned order may kindly be modified to the effect as prayed in the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner No.1 is a qualified lady. She is having a degree of B-Tech and she is able to work but not doing the work and in view of that, the liability cannot be fastened upon the opposite party No.2 merely because he is the husband. He then submits that she was earlier earning and now she has left the job. He further submits that the O.P. No.2 is also having other liabilities and as such even altering the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively are on higher side. He also submits that the Section 127 Cr.P.C. petition has also been passed ex parte as the O.P. No.2 has not appeared. He further submits that the O.P. No.2 has already paid Rs.7,00,000/- in terms of the order passed in anticipatory bail application, which has been received by the petitioners. He also submits that the matter is referred for mediation and, in that order, the direction has been passed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and that has also been paid. He submits that in view of that Rs.7,25,000/- has already been paid. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- has been received by the petitioners. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the 2025:JHHC:33772 4 parties, it is admitted position that petitioner No.1 is the wife of O.P. No.2 and petitioner No.2 is the son of O.P. No.2. In the first maintenance case being Misc. Case No.240 of 2017, the maintenance was allowed to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively in favour of petitioner No.1 and 2. Thereafter the petition was filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. to alter and enhanced the maintenance amount. It transpires from the impugned order that when earlier the maintenance amount was allowed, at that time, the monthly salary of O.P. No.2 was Rs.50,000/- only and in that view of the matter, the said amount was allowed by the learned Court and now the net salary of O.P. No.2 is Rs.1,80,000/- as disclosed before the learned Court and in view of the changed circumstance, the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was filed. The learned Court has found that there is changed circumstance in between the parties and if such a situation was there, it is within the domain of the court to consider the changed circumstance either in favour of the husband or wife and if the situation is there, the order earlier passed by the learned Court can be altered, that too when the salary of O.P. No.2 is Rs.1,80,000/- now. The learned court was required to pass the order in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar’ case (supra). There is no doubt that the learned court has been pleased to alter the same, however, it was only to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- only. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 that the petitioner No.1 is an educated lady and not working cannot be 2025:JHHC:33772 5 accepted in view of the fact as it has been pointed out that the husband had denied to keep the petitioners, the wife has been forced to leave the job to look after the petitioner No.2, who is child and further for approval of maintenance she is earing or not are two different grounds and that cannot be the sole ground for not paying the maintenance amount to the wife. 8. 8. Section 127 Cr.P.C. is meant for alteration of the maintenance amount in the changed circumstance. The Court is required to consider the changed circumstance of both the sides, i.e. the husband and wife. Thus, it is well settled that if the changed circumstance is there, the Court is competent to alter the maintenance amount. It is admitted position that the changed circumstance is there. In view of that, the learned Court has been pleased to alter the maintenance amount; however, the said maintenance amount was required to made in light of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar’ case (supra). Petitioners herein have prayed before the learned court to alter the said amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. 9. In view of the prayer made and in view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is modified to the effect that the petitioner No.1 shall be entitled for maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Petitioner No.2 shall be entitled for Rs.20,000/-, and total comes to Rs.35,000/-. 10. It is well settled that the said order is required to be made from the filing of the application and the application was filed on 2025:JHHC:33772 6 17.12.2022, whereas the impugned order has been passed on 07.03.2024. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is further modified to the effect that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive the said enhanced amount in terms of order passed today w.e.f. 17.12.2022. 12. In light of the above discussions and findings, this petition is allowed and the impugned order 07.03.2024 is modified to the effect that the petitioner No.1 shall be entitled to receive the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and the petitioner No.2 to the tune of Rs.20,000/- w.e.f. 17.12.2022. 13. It is made clear as has been pointed out aforesaid by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 that already Rs.7,25,000/- has been paid by the O.P. No.2 and that has not be denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount already paid to the petitioners and as such amount of Rs.7,25,000/- shall be adjusted in further releasing of the maintenance to the petitioners as modified in the light of the present order. 14. This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 12.11.2025 R.Kumar