Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:16322 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 121 of 2026 Anil Kumar ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nitu Kumari 3. Jyia Gupta … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.PP --- Order No. 02 Dated 08th June, 2026 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. This application is directed against the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh in Original Maintenance Case No. 30 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been ordered to make payment of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to the opposite party No. 3. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has an income of Rs. 16,000/- per month working as a staff in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar. It has been submitted that despite the income of the petitioner being Rs. 16,000/-, he has been saddled with a liability of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which is an exorbitant amount. With respect to Ext.-1, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not solemnized any other marriage and it is wrong to say that the petitioner had a relationship with the wife of Vijay Verma. Learned counsel further adds that the petitioner has been disowned by his parents and has been ousted from his ancestral house about four years back and is residing in a rented house at Kokar (Ranchi). Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made in this application. It appears that so far as the parents of the petitioner having disowned him, no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner. So far as the salary of the petitioner is concerned, here also the petitioner has failed to bring on record any salary slip which would be suggestive of the income of Rs. 16,000/- per month as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, a photograph has been brought on record, which has been marked as Exhibit-1 from which it appears that the petitioner is embracing a lady with a child in his arm and the learned court below has observed that the manner of embrace would make it an improbability that the lady is the wife of the friend of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has admitted to his presence in the photograph in his evidence as O.P.W.-1. There being no documentary evidence either to discard the Ext.-1 or in support of the fact that the parents of the petitioner had disowned him and that he has an income of Rs. 16,000/-, the learned trial court was justified in awarding an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. I do not find any reason to entertain this revision application and consequently the same stands rejected. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) 08.06.2026 MK Page-2