2025:JHHC:21077 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 292 of 2025 Ranjit Oraon, S/o Sohrai Oraon, R/o Village-Kuru Nawatoli, P.O. + P.S. Kuru, District-Lohardaga ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunita Oraon, W/o Ranjit Oraon 3. Harsh Tigga, S/o Ranjit Oraon 4. Tanya Tigga, D/o Ranjit Oraon 5. Manya Tigga, D/o Ranjit Oraon All R/o Village Kuru Nawatoli, P.O. + P.S. Kuru, District-Lohardaga O. P. No. 3, 4 & 5 are Minor and represented through O.P. No. 2 … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, APP ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 30.07.2025. 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Original Maintenance Case No. 44 of 2024 in favour of opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the wife and opposite party nos. 3 to 5 are the children of the opposite party no. 2. 2. Learned Family Judge recorded a finding that the petitioner was a government servant and drew gross salary of Rs.70,000/- and after deductions he receives Rs.55,085/-. 3. Earlier notice was issued on opposite party no. 2 which was duly served, but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has taken a housing loan for which he has to pay Rs.26,684/- per month and is also paying installment against LIC premium, motorcycle loan and SBI life insurance policy. After total deductions, he receives take home salary of only Rs.18,000/- per month. On payment of the maintenance amount, nothing will be left for his personal and living expenses. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has defended the impugned order and submitted that for assessment of income, loan and LIC insurance policy cannot be considered. The opposite parties have been deserted by the petitioner who are now living in their parents’ house. 2025:JHHC:21077 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find force in the argument advanced by learned A.P.P. that the deductions under the head of loan and insurance policy cannot be reckoned for assessment of the income of the petitioner. A total sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for the maintenance of wife and three children of the petitioner which cannot be said to be excessive considering the net salary of the Petitioner. I do not find any merit in the criminal revision. This Criminal Revision Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -