Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Pandey vs Somi Pandey on 8 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:27001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.196 of 2023
Abhishek Pandey, aged about 28 years, Son of Babulal Pandey, Resident
of Village-Inderwa Basti, Near Chhath Talab, Ward No. 05, P.O.-Jhumri
Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, Dist.-Koderma ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Somi Pandey, Wife of Abhishek Pandey, Resident of Village-Inderwa
Basti, Near Chhath Talab, Ward No. 05, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-
Telaiya, Dist. Koderma, presently residing at C/o Nandkishor Pandey,
Village Gumo, Ward No.20, Muhalla- Pandey Tola, P.O.- Jhumri
Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, Dist. Koderma.
2. The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP
For O.P. No.1 : None
------
6/08.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State. Notice to the O.P. No.1 has been
effected and the counsel for O.P. No.1 has appeared through
Vakalatnama, but on repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of O.P.
No.1.
2. I.A. No.4433 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay of
43 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there
is delay of 43 days in filing this Petition and it may kindly be
condoned.
4. In view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application,
the delay of 43 days in filing the Criminal Revision is hereby
condoned.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No.4433 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.
6. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the
2025:JHHC:27001
Judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.140 of
2019, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Court
has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.3500/- per month
to the O.P. No.1 which shall be payable by 26th day of each
succeeding month and the maintenance amount is directed to be paid
from the date of application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
the husband of O.P. No.1 and he is not able to pay a sum of
Rs.3500/- as he is doing the work of labour and in view of that, the
impugned order may kindly be set-aside.
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the
husband and he is bound to maintain the wife and by the impugned
order, the maintenance has been allowed by the learned Court.
9. The learned Court considering the evidence led by O.P. No.1
and other witnesses found that it has been proved that petitioner is a
graduate, employee in TATA Company and his monthly income is
Rs.35,000/-. Learned Court further found that the petitioner is having
ancestral property in Doranda Bazar where there are six shops, from
which he gets monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- and he is also having
agricultural land. Considering all these aspects, learned Court has
allowed maintenance of Rs.3500/- to pay to the wife. It appears that
the amount is very meager. The petitioner being the husband is
bound to maintain the wife and on the cogent reason, the order has
been passed.
2025:JHHC:27001
10. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned
Judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.140 of
2019.
11. As such, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. Let the Trial
Court Record be sent back forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
R.Kumar
