[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Abhijit Mukhopadhyay vs Mousami Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay @ ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:35982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.366 of 2025
Abhijit Mukhopadhyay, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Basudeo
Mukerjee, resident of Bhalagora, P.O.-Udaipur, P.S. Para, District
Purulia, (West Bengal). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Mousami Mukherjee (Mukhopadhyay @ Chatterjee) W/O Abhijit
Mukhopadhayay.
2. Aradhya Mukhopadhyay, D/O Abhijit Mukhopadhyay (aged about 10
years represented through her mother, Petitioner / O.P. no.1),
both resident of Bhalagora, P.O.-Udaipur, P.S. Para, District Purulia,
(West Bengal). Presently residing at Silli, P.O. & P.S.- Silli, District-
Ranchi, (Jharkhand)
3. The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukharji, Advocate.
Mrs. Sandhya Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Ray, APP
For the OP No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
------
4/02.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State and opposite parties.
2. This Criminal revision has been preferred against part of the
Judgment and order dated 24th of January 2025 passed by the learned
Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Ranchi, in Original
Maintenance Case No.275 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the
learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay
Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife, Opposite Party No. 1 and Rs.3,000/-
per month to O.P. No.2 from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2021 for
maintenance of his wife and his daughter.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
marriage between the petitioner and OP No.1 was solemnized on
2025:JHHC:35982
19.02.2009 as per the Hindu Rituals. He submits that in due course of
time, they were blessed with one child, who is aged about 14 years.
He submits that O.P.-1 has instituted Original Maintenance Case
No.275 of 2021 before the learned Family Court, Ranchi on
05.10.2021 alleging that at time of marriage, gift, cash, ornaments
were given to the in-laws and after the marriage, she was living in the
in-laws' house. She has also stated in the petition that O.P. (petitioner
herein) started beating almost on daily basis and she was forced to
leave the house. He submits that all this has been asserted in the
petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by O.P. No.1 before the
learned Court and she also claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as
maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner however submits that the learned court has
been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to his
wife and Rs.3,000/- pm to his minor daughter w.e.f. filing of the
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., however the petitioner salary
is only Rs.11,363/-. He submits in view of that the amount of
maintenance is higher side and in view of that the impugned order
may kindly be set-aside. He also submits that O.P. No.1 has got no
cause to live separately and in spite of that she is living separately, in
view of that also, the wife is not entitled for maintenance. He
however submits that the minor daughter is entitled for the
maintenance. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order
may kindly be set-aside so far, the wife is concerned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that with
2025:JHHC:35982
cogent reason, the impugned order has been passed by the learned
Court and only a sum of Rs.7,000/- maintenance amount has been
allowed for the wife and minor daughter and in view of that this Court
may not interfere with the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 submits that the
wife along with minor daughter have been forced to leave the house as
the in-laws and the petitioner have tried to set her on fire on 06.6.2021
at 6:15 pm, the respondent came and started assaulting her and also
they poured kerosene oil upon her body and after that their daughter
went outside and started crying and after arriving of nearby people,
her in-laws left her and on 07.06.2021, petitioner forcibly dropped
OP1 at her matrimonial home. In view of that he submits that the wife
along with her minor daughter were forced to leave the matrimonial
home. He also submits that the petitioner herein has filed a petition for
judicial separation. He submits however the same has been dismissed
for default. In view of that he submits that sufficient cause is there for
not residing of Opposite parties along with the petitioner. He further
submits that the learned court has taken into consideration other
aspects of the matter. The petitioner was having Renault Duster Car
and he is also doing mobile business and that has been proved in light
of the transaction made in the account of the petitioner. He further
submits in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the
impugned order.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, this Court has gone through the material
2025:JHHC:35982
available on record including the impugned order. It is an admitted
position that the petitioner and O.P. No.1 are husband and wife
respectively. Marriage was solemnized on 19.02.2009. The learned
Court has considered the oral and documentary evidences, which were
marked in the proceeding. The Opposite Party No.1 was examined as
PW-4, reiterated her case before the learned Court and has stated that
her marriage was solemnized with Abhijit Mukherjee on 19th February
2009 and after marriage, she went to her in-law's house, where she
stayed in her in-law's house for about two years. After which, her
daughter was born. She narrated how the torture has started upon
opposite party No.1. Petitioner herein has filed separation case, which
proved that sufficient cause is there with the opposite party No.1 not
to live along with the petitioner. She has also stated that they have
tried to put her on fire by way of pouring kerosene oil and due to
presence of the neighbours, they left her. Other PWs have supported
the case of the wife. The petitioner herein was examined as DW-4
before the learned Court and he has also admitted the marriage. He
has denied that he has mobile repair shop. He also denied that on
06.05.2021, at 6 pm, he assaulted his wife and tried to throw out of her
house. On the quantum, he has stated that he is receiving a sum of
Rs.11,363/- and he was working as contractual vocational teacher. He
has stated that the car is belonging to his brother. However, he has
purchased the same in his name. On the same line, the other witnesses
have also supported the case of the petitioner. In view of the
documents and exhibits, the learned Court has found that the salary
2025:JHHC:35982
was said to be of the petitioner is Rs.11,363/-. The learned Court has
found that in the bank account of the petitioner continuously
Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,800/- Rs.2500/- have been transferred by some
persons, in view of that the learned Court has rejected the denial on
the point of having another source of income by way of operating
mobile phone shop or others. The petitioner has disclosed that the
petitioner has received 0.69 acre of land as gift from his father, in
view of that also the petitioner is having some income. The document
and no chit of paper has been filed by the petitioner before the learned
Court to suggest that the car in question was purchased by his brother.
On the other hand, O.P. No.1 has produced the document of DTO with
regard to the said car, where the name of the petitioner has bene
indicated. In all these backgrounds, the learned Court has directed to
pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to his
wife-O.P. No.1 and minor daughter-O.P. No.2 respectively, that total
comes to Rs.7,000/-.
7. In light of the above discussions and materials available on
record, which has come in the impugned order of the learned Court,
there is no illegality in the impugned order.
8. As such, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any are also
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
02.12.2025
R.Kumar
Uploaded on 05.12.2025
