RANCHI, India, Aug. 23 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 23:

1. Petitioner is before this Court against the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 with effect from the date of filing of the application for maintenance on 04.01.2019. There is a further direction to pay the arrear amount to O.P. No. 2 by six installments within a year.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in compliance to the order dated 20.06.2025, Rs.75,000/- has been deposited in her Account No. 50008100001037 of Bank of Baroda on different dates.

3. The award of maintenance is assailed on the ground that Rs. 15,000/- is excessive, as the petitioner is a private employee in a Transport Company and earns only Rs. 12,000/- per month at present. Learned Family Court has taken into account the income of the father of the petitioner in assessing the monthly income to award the maintenance amount. Petitioner has no concern with the Transport Company owned by his father.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the petitioner before the Family Court. Petitioner has himself stated that he was working in the company owned by O.P.W. 2. The O.P.W. 2 has also testified to the same effect. Although it has come in the cross-examination of the O.P. No. 2 and her father that said Road Lines Company was owned by the petitioner, but no documentary evidence has been led in support of it. There is also no evidence to support that the said Company had income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month.

5. Impugned order is defended by the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, but he has failed to refer to any cogent evidence on the basis of which and inference was drawn that the Petitioner was having monthly income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it is evident that there is no concrete documentary evidence regarding consistent income of the petitioner or his father. The O.P.W. 2 has deposed that the petitioner was working in his Company and therefore, there appears to be some credence to the plea of the petitioner that assessment of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as annual income is excessive and not realistic.

Under the circumstance, the maintenance amount is reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month.

Criminal Revision is, accordingly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.