1 Cr. Revision No. 264 of 2020 2025:JHHC:27220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr. Revision No. 264 of 2020 ---- Rajesh Kumar Shaw @ Rajesh Sao, aged about 34 years, son of Sitaram Sao, resident of Village Nathpara, PO Aakra, PS Maheshtalla, District Kolkata, West Bengal …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rita Devi wife of Rajesh Kumar Shaw @ Rajesh Sao 3.Ritesh Kumar, son of Rajesh Kumar Shaw @ Rajesh Sao (minor son) Both are resident of Village Manjhne, PO and PS Gawan, District Giridih ……. …… .... Opp.Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Advocate ---- 6/09.09.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is three days’ delay in preferring the criminal revision petition and for condonation of delay, the I.A. No.5231 of 2021 has been filed. He submits that for the reasons assigned in the instant I.A the delay may kindly be condoned. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent State has got no serious objection if the said delay is condoned. 3. Considering that such delay is of three days and for the reasons assigned in the instant I.A., the said delay is hereby condoned and the instant I.A stands allowed and disposed. 4. Heard Mr.Roy the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 5. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance Case No.343 of 2015 whereby the learned court has directed to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- per month to the wife/ O.P.No.2 and Rs.2500/- per month to the O.P.No.3 as maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.P.No.2/wife and O.P.No.3/child have filed a petition under section 125 CrPC before the learned 2 Cr. Revision No. 264 of 2020 court and the learned court has allowed the said petition which is not in accordance with law and he submits that the amount is on the higher side in comparison to the income of the petitioner and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has rightly allowed Rs.3500/- to the OP No.2 and Rs.2500/- to the OP No.3/child respectively which is a meager amount. He submits that the petitioner being husband and father of the O.P.No.2 as well as O.P.No.3 respectively is bound to maintain them. 8. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court has gone through the impugned order of the learned court wherein it appears that the learned court has found that the petitioner is running a grocery shop and earns Rs.25,000/- per month and the claim was made by the OP Nos.2 and 3 for maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. 9. Considering the spirit of Section 125 CrPC the learned court after discussing the evidences of PWs and DWs as well as the Exhibits has come to the finding and has awarded the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.3500/- and Rs.2500/-, per month, to the OP Nos.2 and 3, wife and child, respectively. The petitioner, being the husband and father of OP Nos.2 and 3 respectively is bound to maintain them. The Court finds that the learned court has rightly passed the said order assessing the income and the status of both the sides and in view of that, the learned court has taken care of the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the instant criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed. 10. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/