2026:JHHC:12274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1294 of 2023 -------- Pintu Ravidas, aged about 33 years, Son of Amit Ravidas, Resident of Jitpur Mali Bagan, P.O. Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur, Dist. Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kajal Kumari Rabidas, D/o Phuleshwar Rabidas, Resident of Loco Bazar, Hatiatand, P.O.Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur, Dist. Dhanbad …… Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate -------- Order No. 11/ Dated: 27th April, 2026 The instant criminal revision is directed against impugned judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No. 298 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month, as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to each of their minor children, till they attain the age of majority. Accordingly, the total maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was living with his wife and children with all sort of love and affection. She also resided for some 2026:JHHC:12274 2 Cr. Revision No. 1294 of 2023 time, at the work place of the petitioner at Assam but left the said place without any sufficient cause and refused to live with the petitioner. Therefore, the petition for maintenance itself is not maintainable. It is further submitted that exorbitant allowance has been awarded to the opposite party No. 2 without being the capacity of the petitioner and ignoring his liabilities. Therefore, impugned judgment is fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, in spite of valid personal service of notice to opposite party No. 2, she did not appear to contest this petition. The learned APP has defended the judgment on merits and submitted that opposite party No. 2 Kajal Kumari Rabidas was examined as P.W.-1 and she has categorically stated in her evidence that she was being tortured and subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demanded by her husband. During pendency of this maintenance case, the matter was referred for mediation but her husband did not appear. Her husband also lodged a case for restitution of conjugal rights wherein conciliation was arrived at between the parties and she went to workplace of the petitioner at Assam, where she was residing in a rented house, where also, she was assaulted by her husband. Then, she returned with her brother, at her parental home. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party No. 2 is residing at parental home separately with her husband without any reasonable cause. Therefore, so far quantum of maintenance allowance is concerned, that is also based upon monthly salary slip of the petitioner, which at that time was Rs. 55,000/- per month. It was also 2026:JHHC:12274 3 Cr. Revision No. 1294 of 2023 brought on record that her husband has agricultural land in his native village which yields monthly income of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, there is no valid reason for interference in the impugned judgment of maintenance awarded to the opposite party No. 2 and their minor children. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 5. It appears that the petitioner was married with opposite party No. 2 on 14.04.2017. Her both male children were born in hospital and the expenses were borne by her father. Elder son is aged 4 years old and younger was only 7 months old. It is also alleged that the present petitioner was posted in Gaya Bihar, at that time, in S.S.B. force and pressurizing his wife to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father and due to non-fulfillment of which, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. She also went to Assam, where her husband was employed and started living in a rented house, where also, she was assaulted and ultimately ousted from house, then, she returned to her parental home along with his brother. It also appears that salary slip of the petitioner was also called for, during enquiry in the case, which was shown as Rs. 55,000/- per month. Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner vide O.S. No. 399 of 2022 was also pending before the same Court and was compromised between the parties but the bitterness did not reduce between them. 6. In the above-mentioned factual aspects of the case, the learned Trial Court has reasonably passed the order of maintenance in favour of 2026:JHHC:12274 4 Cr. Revision No. 1294 of 2023 opposite party No. 2, which in view of salary of the petitioner, which might have been enhanced now, cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this revision and valid reason for interference in the impugned judgment. 7. Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal revision stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 27.04.2026 Basant Uploaded on 28/04/2026