2025:JHHC:20913 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 344 of 2025 ----- Ram Pravesh Prajapati, S/o Balkesh Prajapati, R/o Village Saguna, P.O. & P.S. Paton, District Palamau … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Usha Devi, W/o Ram Pravesh Prajapati, D/o Deonandan Prajapati, R/o Village Saguna, P.O. & P.S. Paton, District Palamau, now resident of Village & PO Dandar Kala, P.S. Panki, District Palamau … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, S.P.P. For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate ----- Oral Order 04 / Dated : 29.07.2025 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the ex-parte order dated 21.02.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 140 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of O.P. No.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an ex-parte order of maintenance was passed against the petitioner, in which the income of the petitioner was assessed to Rs 100/- per day, as he was working as a labourer. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 that the petitioner is a driver of heavy vehicle and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides this, he is also having an agricultural income of Rs.70 to 80,000/- annually. 4. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 has compromised with the petitioner which is evident from the joint compromise petition (Annexure-1) filed by both the parties before the Family Court, Palamau. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I do not find that the order of maintenance has been passed on the basis of compromise petition. Therefore, this plea is not sustainable. Considering the finding of fact regarding the occupation of the petitioner, maintenance awarded cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, said to be excessive. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This revision petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra