RANCHI, India, Feb. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 19:

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. IA No. 12781 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the delay of 28 days in filing of the revision petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner due to livelihood residing at Jamshedpur and when it has come to the knowledge to the petitioner about the order passed by the learned Family Court Dhanbad, the preparation has been made and the criminal revision has been filed, in view of that, the delay has occurred.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is delay of 28 days and that can be condoned.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer and submits that it is not clear that how the petitioner was staying at Jamshedpur. In view of that the IA meant for condonation of delay may kindly be rejected.

6. Considering that the delay is only of 28 days and in view of the submission of the petitioner and the averments made in the IA, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 28 days.

7. As such, the delay of 28 days is hereby condoned and the IA No. 12781 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

8. This petition has been filed for challenging the illegality and propriety of judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No. 587 of 2023, whereby the learned court has been pleased to allow the petition filed under section 125 of the CrPC and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 and Rs.8,000/- to the opposite party No.3 per month and the same shall be paid by the 10th day of each succeeding calendar month. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not able to pay the said amount as the petitioner is only earning Rs.11,000/- by way of doing a job and in that view of the matter, he submits that excessive amount order has been passed in the impugned order. He also submits that the wife is residing in Chanakya Hotel, which is of his father and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be rejected.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter is arising out of section 125 of the CrPC and seeing the status of both the sides, the learned court has rightly passed the order.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 and 3 opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has found that the said Chanakya Hotel is of the petitioner and of his father and his father has disclosed earning from the hotel is Rs.02 lakh. In view of that, the learned court has rightly passed the order.

11. Learned court has found that the Chanakya Hotel is an ancestral property of the petitioner and the license for running the hotel has been earlier issued in the name of the petitioner and in view of that the learned court has rightly found that the petitioner is the owner of Chanakya Hotel as the license has been issued in his name. The father of the petitioner has deposed that he is the owner of the Chanakya Hotel and his monthly income from the hotel is Rs.2 lakh and the wife has filed affidavit before the learned court and disclosed her income nil and the petitioner herein showing the income of Rs. 11,000/- per month. However, the learned court considered that from the hotel, earning of Rs.2 lakh has been disclosed, none other than the father of the petitioner and the license is in the name of the petitioner.

12. In view of that, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.8,000/- per month respectively has been passed by the learned court under section 125 of the CrPC, sufficient cogent reason has been given in the said order. No case for interference is made out.

13. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Pending petitions if any also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.