Sujay Kumar Mahto @ Mithun vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1187 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sujay Kumar Mahto @ Mithun vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                           2025:JHHC:20747




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Revision No. 352 of 2025
                             ------

Sujay Kumar Mahto @ Mithun , son of Anil Mahato, resident of Manohartand (Tandkulhi), P.O. Sindri, P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Shilpi Kumari, wife of Sujay Kumar Mahto @ Mithun, resident of Manohartand Basti, P.O. Sindri, P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Saw, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate

------

Order No.04 Dated : 28.07.2025 Instant criminal revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Original Maintenance Case No.509 of 2021 in favour of opposite party no.2. Learned Family Judge has recorded a finding that O.P. No.2 was legally married wife of the petitioner, who had a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- from a small shop of chocolate and biscuit. Considering his income, Rs.4000/- has been awarded as maintenance.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that opposite party no.2 was not legally married wife as there was no evidence of the said marriage. Further, it is submitted that during pendency of revision application, O.P. No.2 married one Raju Mahto and the photocopy of the marriage card as well as the photographs of the marriage have been enclosed by way of supplementary affidavit.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of O.P. No.2 defends the impugned order. It is submitted that learned Family Court has recorded a finding of fact in para 17 - 19 of the impugned judgment, that the petitioner had eloped with opposite party no.2 to Gujarat where they solemnized marriage in Ganpati Temple and thereafter, when they returned, a Panchayti was convened. So far subsequent marriage of O.P. No.2 during pendency of the revision is concerned, is beyond purview of consideration in the present revision.

2025:JHHC:20747

4. If there is a change in circumstance so far marriage is concerned and that O.P. No.2 has remarried, it is a subsequent development, which cannot be considered in the instant revision. The parties are liberty to move the learned Family Court which will enquire into the matter and pass appropriate order.

5. So far the marital status of the petitioner with opposite party no.2 is concerned, there is definite finding of fact based on evidence on record that O.P. No.2 had solemnized marriage with petitioner at Gujarat and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. The maintenance order needs no interference.

Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit