Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15816 (JHR)

BINOD KR. BHARTI ALIAS VINOD BHARTI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./58/2026 · 2026-06-08

Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:16389 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 58 of 2026 Binod Kr. Bharti @ Vinod Bharti, son of Ram Narayan Das, resident of at present State Bank of India, DRM Office, PO, PS & District: Dhanbad, Permanent Address: Vill: Danapur, Near Tara Chowk, Saguna More, PO & PS: Danapur, Distt. Patna (Bihar). ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunita Kumari, wife of Binod Kr. Bharti, daughter of Ram Kewat Ram, A/p-Q No. 2/36, Near Balaji Mandir, Jagjeewan Nagar, PO: Jagjeewan Nagar, PS Saraidhela, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand. Permanent Address: Village & PO: Obra, PS; Obra, Distt. Aurangabad (Bihar). … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --- 02/08.06.2026 Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. This application is directed against the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No. 650 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been asked to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the minor son of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 herself is employed and earns an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- per annum. It has been submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he earns an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- per annum and the learned trial Court should have considered fixing liability of Rs.7,500/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.7,500/- per month to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is an employee of SBI and draws a substantial income. Though the opposite party no.2 is also an earning lady but considering the income of the petitioner, reasonable amount of Rs.15,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the minor son of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, I am not inclined to entertain this application which accordingly stands dismissed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) 08.06.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 09.06.2026