[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Gorai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:35794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.654 of 2025
Ravi Gorai, Aged about 35 years, Son of Bholanath Gorai, Resident of
Sudamdih, Riverside, Qtr. No. M/194, P.O. Sudamdih, P.S. Sudamdih,
District-Dhanbad. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shilpa Gorai, Aged About 24 years, Wife of Ravi Gorai, Daughter of
Niranjan Gorai, Resident of Nunudih Basti, P.O. Pathardih, P.S.
Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad. ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
------
5/01.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2.
2. I.A. No.7258 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of
372 days in filing the Cr. Revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
delay has occurred as the petitioner was trying to compromise the matter,
as such, the delay may kindly be condoned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2
have got no objection if the delay is condoned.
5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and the reasons assigned in the I.A., the delay of 372 days in filing the
Cr. Revision is hereby condoned.
6. I.A. No.7258 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
7. This petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment dated
18.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-
II, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.115 of 2021, whereby the
application filed by the O.P. No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been
2025:JHHC:35794
allowed by the learned Court and has been pleased to allow maintenance
of Rs.4,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 till she alive or remarried and
Rs.3,000/- per month to her daughter till her marriage or gainfully
employed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized on
17.02.2016 at Sudamdih, Dhanbad according to Hindu Rites. He then
submits that the learned court has allowed the petition and directed the
petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- to the O.P. No.2 till
she alive or remarried and Rs. Rs.3,000/- per month to her daughter till
her marriage or gainfully employed.
9. He submits that the petitioner is trying to compromise the matter,
however, the wife is not ready. He then submits that the learned court has
allowed the maintenance, which is in higher side and in view of that also,
the impugned order is not in accordance with law. On these grounds, he
submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the
compromise has taken place, however, the petitioner has again driven out
his wife from the matrimonial home and in view of that the compromise
is not existing. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a
divorce suit being Original Suit Case No.652 of 2020, which is pending
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. He further submits
that if the petitioner is sincere about the compromise, he can take
recourse in the said divorce case.
11. It is admitted position that the marriage between the petitioner and
O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2016. The learned Court has
2025:JHHC:35794
considered the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 as well as exhibits. PW-1 who
happened to be O.P. No.2 has stated before the learned Court that she
was tortured physically and mentally by her in-laws and out of the
wedlock, a daughter was also born and then she was driven out from the
matrimonial home on 11.11.2020 demanding Rs.03 lakh dowry
otherwise saying that she was not allowed to live in the matrimonial
home. She has also stated that the petitioner happened to be an
electrician and his monthly income is Rs.21,000/- and he also earns
Rs.10,000/- out of letting house on rent. PW-2 and PW-3 have
substantiated the version of PW-1. The husband was examined and other
witnesses have also been examined on behalf of husband before the
learned Court and he has stated about the quarrel between the petitioner
and O.P. No.2 His version was silent on the point of income. In view of
that the learned Court has considered the evidence and has come to the
conclusion that the petitioner's earing is Rs.21,000/- per month.
12. In view of that, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the
maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to his wife and Rs.3,000/- to his
child respectively. There is no illegality in the impugned order and as
such no interference is required.
13. In view of that this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
01.12.2025
R.Kumar
