RANCHI, India, Sept. 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 12:

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This Cr. Revision has been preferred against the Judgment dated 12.02.2020 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.403 of 2018 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the O.P. Reeta Kumari as maintenance till she alive and further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to her as litigation cost.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party has been solemnized on 08.06.2010 and after marriage, she stayed only for one week in her matrimonial home and thereafter she went to her parents' house and never come to the petitioner's parental home and live with him.

4. She further submits that petitioner joined as clerk on contract basis at Aurangabad, Bihar and left the quarter of BCCL, Dhanbad in the year 2013, where he was in job. All of a sudden, the O.P. came with her brother in the petitioner's quarter at BCCL, Dhanbad and broken the lock of the quarter and started living there. She filed maintenance case on 16.8.2018. Learned counsel submits that in view of the filing of the maintenance case, it is clearly proved that O.P. is residing separately.

5. She further submits that the O.P. is working with an NGO and in view of that she is not entitled for any maintenance, whereas the learned Court still granted maintenance, which is not in accordance with law. She also submits that the O.P. is living in adultery.

6. She further submits that in terms of the impugned order, the petitioner has already paid a sum of rupees two lakhs and pursuant to the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 14.07.2025, further rupees one lakh has been deposited before the learned Registrar General of this Court.

7. She further submits that the learned Court has not considered the ratio of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. On this ground, she submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing for sole opposite party opposed the prayer and submits that the opposite party is not having any source of income and she has only received a sum of rupees two lakhs. She further submits that rupees one lakh deposited by the petitioner is lying with the learned Registrar General of this Court.

9. She further submits that the learned Court has dealt with the case of both the sides and considered the documentary as well as oral evidence and thereafter passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1dywZAvT7UCQA9KhSCjFbq5lbKGfg%2FjjnyfKytkP4n8gg&caseno=Cr.Rev./705/2020&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010214752020&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.