2025:JHHC:21393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 672 of 2025 ------ Baban Singh @ Ronit Singh. S/O- Yogendra Singh, R/O- Village Khobha, P.O + P.S. Rikhiya, District-Deoghar … Petitioner Versus 1. Trisha Devi @ Sweta Devi, W/o- Baban Singh @ Ronit Singh, D/O- Late Kumar Chandra Kishore @ Dr. A.K. Singh 2. Rudra Pratap Singh, S/o- Trisha Devi @ Sweta Devi and Baban Singh @ Ronit Singh represented through his mother and natural guardian, O.P. 1 Both are R/o - R/O- Vill- Khoba, P.O - Deoghar, P.S. - Rikhiya, District- Deoghar Permanent R/o Village- Gambharia, P.O. + P.S.- Deoghar, District - Deoghar … Opposite Parties ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : ---- 05/ 31.07.2025 By filing this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 11.02.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Original Maintenance Case No. 115 of 2024, whereby the Court granted monthly Maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife (O.P) and Rs.1,000/- to his minor son namely Rudra Pratap Singh (aged about 1 year) till his attaining majority by the 10th day of every succeeding month and the arrears of the maintenance is directed to be paid within three months in three equal installments. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to his wife (O.P) and Rs.1,000/- to his minor son namely, Rudra Pratap Singh (aged about 1 year) is wrong and unjustified. He submits that petitioner is a private tutor and he hardly earns Rs. 6,000/- per month and he has responsibilities to take care of his old grandparents and parents, who are dependent upon him. He further submits that the opposite party has sufficient earning to maintain herself and her child. He further submits that no documentary and reliable evidence has been produced by the complainant in support of earning of the petitioner that he earns Rs.40,000/- per month. Learned Counsel contends that petitioner will be only left with Rs.2,000/- after deduction of the maintenance amount, which is not enough for his survival. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the records, I find that the plea that the petitioner’s salary is insufficient to maintain both his mother and his wife and child is misleading. It is duty, if the, husband to provide sufficient financial support to his wife and children. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is in the case of Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 has held that husband is bound to maintain his wife and children and support them financially. It is necessary to quote paragraph 10 of the said Judgment:- 10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 6. From the impugned order, I find that witnesses have stated that the petitioner works as Medical Representative in a Medical Company. He also provides tuition and earns handsome amount from his agricultural land. Further, the petitioner himself had admitted that he earns Rs.8,500/- per month from providing tuition and he also files income tax returns. In the impugned order, it is observed by the Court below that the petitioner has neither filed his passbook or other document nor the income tax returns of the previous financial years, which goes to show that the petitioner is concealing his actual income. The petitioner is an educated person, who works for his livelihood. Thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to escape his liabilities of maintaining of his wife and minor child. 7. Thus, I find that the order of grant of monetary maintenance to the wife and child is reasonable and justified, taking into consideration the needs of the wife and minor child. The amount awarded i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to his minor son is neither excessive nor unreasonable. Thus, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.