RANCHI, India, Oct. 17 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 16:
1. Heard Mr. Rishu Ranjan along with Mr. Chiranjeev Bhadoria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court II, Ranchi in connection with Original Maintenance Case No.51 of 2023, whereby the petition filed under section 125 CrPC by the O.P.Nos.2 and 3 has been allowed and learned court has been pleased to direct to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month to the O.P.No.2 as well as Rs.10,000/- per month to the OP No.3 with further direction that the amount shall be paid from the date of application i.e. 08.02.2023 and to pay arrears within one year in six installments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the OP No.2 was solemnized on 30.08.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Ghaziabad and after solemnizing marriage, OP No.2 has started to reside in her matrimonial home in Ghaziabad. He submits that in the petition the allegations are made that several articles have been gifted and even dowry has been paid to the petitioner and family members and after pregnancy, subsequently, the OP No.2 was being harassed by the petitioner and family members for bringing a sum of Rs.20 lacs from her father's house. He submits that the allegations are made of making assault on 22.12.2021 upon the OP No.2. In this background, he submits that the petition filed under section 125 Cr.PC has been allowed by the learned Court and amount is on the higher side. He submits that the petitioner is having no such income who is a practicing lawyer in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and without considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 the said order has been passed. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that in cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted before the learned Court that he used to come to Ranchi for attending the case on each and every date by flight. He submits that admission is made in the cross-examination itself which is sufficient to suggest that the petitioner is having sufficient means to pay the said amount. In view of that, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
5. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that the learned Court has threadbare discussed the materials on record and has appreciated the evidences led by the parties. PW No.1 -Prachi Kapoor who is opposite party No.2/wife and PW 2 is her mother. The petitioner is the husband and opposite party No.2 is daughter-in-law and opposite party No.2 is the mother of the opposite party No.3. The evidence has been considered by the learned court. The opposite party No.2 has stated before the learned court that after marriage, she lived peaceful conjugal life and she had conceived and thereafter the petitioner and his mother has started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand they committed physical and mental torture. She has further stated that on 19.05.2022 a baby child was born and after the born of the baby child, the mother of the petitioner has demanded Rs.25 lacs.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x0Qdb%2BbMtALiqCoriyhWRvtv99Mz%2B4qz1%2BvYwsdljVhR&caseno=Cr.Rev./769/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010217412025&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
