Jharkhand High Court
Priya Kumari Aged About 34 Years Wife Of ... vs Suraj Kumar Modi on 18 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:24154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr. Revision No.60 of 2025
----
Priya Kumari aged about 34 years wife of Suraj Kumar Modi and
daughter of Sri Devendra Barnwal at present reside at Kathara Staff
Colony, PO Kathara, PS Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.Suraj Kumar Modi, son of Pradeep Kumar Barnwal resident of
Village Dhab Road, PO Domchandh, PO and PS Domchanch, District
Koderma, Jharkhand
2.The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- In person
For the State :- Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate
For the O.P.No.1. :- Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
----
5/18.08.2025 Heard the petitioner appearing in-person and learned
counsel for State as well as the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1.
2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner for challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat
(Bokaro) in Original Maintenance Case No.25 of 2023 whereby an
amount of Rs.12,000/- per month has been awarded by way of
maintenance to the petitioner -wife by 10th day of each succeeding
English calendar month from the date of filing of the case of
maintenance i.e. from 20.01.2023.
3. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that she has
2025:JHHC:24154
filed the present criminal revision petition for enhancement of the
awarded amount of maintenance. She submits that the petitioner has
proved her case by way of examining two witnesses namely, PW1 and
PW2 being the petitioner herself and another being Kanchan Priya and
she submits that they have supported the case of the petitioner. She
submits that one Suchit Kumar Barnwal, brother of O.P.No.1 was
examined as DW1. She submits that O.P.No.1 has filed his salary slip
showing Rs.83,653/- being paid as his salary for the month of August,
2024. She submits that meager amount has been allowed and in view of
that the petitioner has filed this revision for enhancement of the said
amount to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand) per month.
According to her, the grounds taken by the husband is not correct and he
is not a disabled person to the extent of 70-80 % disablement. On this
ground, she submits that the awarded amount may kindly be modified
and the awarded amount of maintenance may kindly be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits
that it appears from the argument of the petitioner that even the
awarded amount is not being paid to by the husband who is O.P.No.1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.1 submits that
O.P.No.1 happened to be husband of the petitioner and the O.P.No.1 is
physically handicapped of about 70-80% and most of his income goes to
his treatment. He submits that Disable Certificate is brought on record as
contained in Annexure-A. He further submits that Rs.30,000/- has been
deducted from the salary of the O.P.No.1 towards the maintenance to the
parents in connection with Original Maintenance Case No.38 of 2023
which was filed by the parents of the O.P.No.1 as contained in Annexure-
B of the counter affidavit. He submits that in light of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish v. Neha,
reported in AIR 2021 SC 569, an affidavit along with the pay slip for
the month of June, 2024 has also been annexed in the counter affidavit
as contained in Annexure-C. He further submits that the petitioner herein
has also lodged a case being Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No.105 of 2022
against the petitioner and his parents. He submits that the allegations are
2025:JHHC:24154
made that the petitioner is not physically fit and in view of that the
relationship has not been established between petitioner and O.P.No.1.
He submits that the learned court has calculated the maintenance
considering the materials on record and thereafter has passed the order.
He further submits that the said order has also been challenged by the
O.P.No.1 in criminal revision petition which is pending before this Court.
6. It transpires from the impugned order that the marriage was
solemnized between the petitioner and the O.P.No.1 on 27.4.2022 at
Agrasen Bhawan at Tillaiya as per the Hindu Rites and customs. The
allegations are made that the O.P.No.1 and family members were
torturing the petitioner and for that, the petitioner has instituted Bokaro
Thermal P.S. Case No.105 of 2022. The learned court has appreciated the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 as well as the documents market as exhibits.
The petitioner herein has deposed in cross examination that her father is
unemployed and her brother is doing business and the grounds of
enhancement of the maintenance amount has been taken that her father
is aged 78 years and she has to maintain her father also. She has also
admitted that she has filed Dowry Act case against the O.P.No.1. PW2 is
Kanchan Priya who happened to be sister of the petitioner and in cross
examination she has accepted that she has never visited the matrimonial
home of the petitioner. However, later on, she has stated that she has
visited the matrimonial home of the petitioner with administrative officials
on 15.8.2022. She has further stated that petitioner has filed two cases
against the O.P.No.1 and she has denied about the disability to the extent
of 70-80 % disablement of the O.P.No.1. Suchit Kumar Barnwal who is
brother of the O.P.No.1 has filed a petition disclosing the assets and
liability and it appears that in light of the judgment of Rajnish v.
Neha(supra), the same has been complied by way filing the petition
disclosing the assets and liability. The complaint case and the FIR have
also been marked as Exhibits C/1 and C/1/1. The brother has also stated
that in complaint petition itself she has alleged that his brother is
handicapped and he has not been able to make physical relationship. The
O.P.No.1 is working in Jharkhand Gramin Bank in the district of Chatra
2025:JHHC:24154
and in the petition filed by the petitioner it has been stated that he is
having salary of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.4000/- is being received as rent and
that has also been stated by her in the evidence, however, she has not
filed any document before the learned court which has been noted in the
impugned order by the learned court.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 has filed
salary slip of June, 2024 issued by Gramin Bank concerned in which
monthly salary has been disclosed to be Rs.86,653/- that is gross pay
and on the ground of the disability certificate the maintenance has been
denied by the O.P.No.1 who is husband.
8. It appears that the parents of the O.P.No.1 has filed the case
being O.M.C. No.38 of 2023 for maintenance and now pursuant to that
Rs.30,000/- per month are being paid to the parents of the O.P.No.1
towards their maintenance and the balance is said to be Rs.25,441/-
being received by the O.P.No.1.
9. In view of above, it is crystal clear that no document of further
income of the O.P.no.1 has been disclosed by the petitioner herein before
the learned court. On the other hand, the O.P.No.1 has filed the petition
disclosing the assets and the liability and what has been discussed in the
judgment of the learned court, it transpires that after deduction, a
meager amount is being received by the O.P.No.1. The learned court has
found that it cannot be a criteria that for paying maintenance to a legally
wedded wife and thereafter the said order of maintenance to the tune of
Rs.12,000/- has been allowed by the learned court in deciding the
petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the luxury is not
required to be looked into, however, status of both the sides are the
relevant consideration for allowing maintenance.
10. What has been discussed hereinabove in light of the affidavit
filed by the O.P.No.1 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajnish v. Neha(supra) is complied with, the Court finds
that the learned court has rightly passed the said order and allowed
2025:JHHC:24154
Rs.12,000/- per month to be paid to the petitioner from the date of filing
of the application and there is no illegality in the impugned order and as
such, this petition is hereby dismissed.
11. It has been pointed out by the petitioner appearing in person
that the said awarded amount is not being paid by the O.P.No.1, and
if such a situation is there, the remedy to the petitioner is to move before
the learned court which has awarded the said maintenance amount by
way of filing proper petition.
12. If such a petition is filed by the petitioner before the learned
court for payment of the awarded maintenance amount to the petitioner,
the learned court will proceed considering the hardship of the petitioner
and decide the same expeditiously.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
