2025:JHHC:20536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 165 of 2020 ----- Ravi Ranjan Kumar, S/o Rajeshwar Rai, R/o Gaytri Niwas, Nawadih, P.O.-‘B’ Polytechnic, P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad … …. Petitioner Versus Deepika Roy, W/o Ravi Ranjan Kumar, R/o Bhuli ‘C’ Block, Quarter No. 509, P.O.-Bhuli, P.S.-Bank More, Dist.-Dhanbad … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kr. Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Rohit Kr. Gupta, Advocate ----- Oral Order 08 / Dated : 25.07.2025 1. The petitioner is the husband and the order of maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month was passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Original Maintenance Case No. 352 of 2019, which is under challenge. 2. The order has been impugned mainly on the ground that the Trial Court has failed to record any finding regarding the monthly income of the petitioner and further since the petitioner was debarred from filing the show cause, therefore, the defence has not been considered. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that earlier an ex-parte proceeding was drawn which was recalled on payment of Rs.2000/- as cost, but since the petitioner did not file the show cause within the stipulated time, therefore, he was debarred again from filing the show cause. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is evident that the application for maintenance was filed in the year 2019 which proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, the said order was recalled and opportunity was given to the petitioner to file the show cause. Despite the opportunity having been granted, no show cause was filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the proceeding was drawn ex-parte against the petitioner. 5. Altogether three witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant on which the maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month has been allowed considering the business of the petitioner, as stated in the petition. 2025:JHHC:20536 2 There is no contrary evidence on record. The amount of maintenance, as awarded, cannot be said to be excessive. Under the circumstance, this criminal revision petition stands rejected. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra