Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Roshan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:28142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.764 of 2025
Rakesh Roshan, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Shivjee Rai, Resident of
C-102, Neo City Phasi-II, Bakori Road, Wagholi, P.O & P.S- Lonikand,
District-Pune. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Nikita Roshan, wife of Rakesh Roshan, D/o Uma Shankar Pradhan,
3. Nitara Rai, aged about 4 years, Daughter of Rakesh Roshan, represented
through her mother (Nikita Roshan)/ O.P No.2.
Both Resident of Pradhan Niwas, Shivaji Nagar, Dumardaga, P.O & P.S-
Buti, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. PP
------
2/15.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. This Revision Petition has been preferred against the Judgment
dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 261 of 2023, whereby the
learned court has been pleased to allow the petition filed under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. by O.P No. 2 & 3 and ordered for payment of Rs. 20000/-
per month to O.P No.2 and Rs. 15000/- to O.P Nо.3 per month towards
maintenance from the date of filing of the case i.e., 21.06.2023 by 10 th
day of every succeeding month and further directed that the arrears of
monthly maintenance shall be payable within six months from the date
of judgment in equal instalments.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
marriage between the O.P No.2 and petitioner was solemnized on
05.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at village Chhotka
Dhakaich, Buxar, Bihar in presence of family members and relatives of
2025:JHHC:28142
both the sides. He submits that out of the wedlock, two children have
born and one daughter is residing with this petitioner and one daughter,
who is aged about four years is residing with O.P. No.2.
4. He further submits that the learned Court has allowed the petition
filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. without appreciating the fact and the
O.P. No.2 is also earning. In view of that, he submits that the learned
Court has wrongly passed the impugned order and, on this ground, he
submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.
5. It transpires from the impugned order that the learned Court has
framed three issues to decide whether the petition filed by the O.P. No.2
is fit to be allowed or not and that is as under: -
(i) That she is legally wedded wife of the O.P./husband.
(ii) That her husband having sufficient means is neglecting or
refusing her and child to maintain or taking due care of the
O.P. No.2.
(iii) That she is unable to maintain herself and children.
6. Learned Court has further considered Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
7. The OP2 has produced two witnesses and the learned Court has
found that both the witnesses of the OP2 have supported and
corroborated the case of OP2. They have deposed about the marriage
between the petitioner and Opposite Party was solemnized on
05.05.2013 and birth of two daughters out of their wedlock. Petitioner
herein is working in Chennai as Senior Software Engineer in HCL and
the petitioner and his parents started demanding of dowry to the tune of
Rs.50 lakhs. The other things have further been considered elaborately
by the learned Court. The complaint Case has been filed by the O.P.
No.2 being Complaint Case No.5536 of 2023 against the petitioner and
2025:JHHC:28142
other family members for torture and demand of dowry. In the cross-
examination, AW-2 has deposed that the O.P. No.2 is working in BPO
and gets Rs.8,000/- per month. She has two daughters out of whom, her
elder daughter resides with the petitioner and studying in Class-III and
her educations expenses is being borne by the petitioner. She has stated
that the petitioner salary was Rs.1.10 to 1.15 lakhs and now his salary
would be Rs.1.50 lakhs and she further stated that the O.P. No.2 is living
separately since 08.12.2022. During the cross-examination, AW-1, father
of O.P. No.2 has also supported the case.
8. OPW-1 and OPW-2 have deposed that the monthly salary of the
petitioner is Rs.01 lakhs and the O.P. No.2 has also filed a case Under
Section 498-A of IPC against the petitioner and the younger daughter is
living with the opposite party No.2. In the cross-examination, OPW-1
has deposed that the petitioner is a Software Engineer in HCL Company
as Technical Lead since 2018 and before that in the year 2013 to 2018,
he was working in Allen Musk Company as Software Engineer and since
last 10 years, he is filing his income Tax Return. It is admitted that the
package of his company is Rs.18 lakhs. His father has retired from Air-
Force and he gets monthly pension. He lives in Pune in a rental house.
His ancestral house is in Diya, Buxar is admitted, however, that has not
been divided between the family members. He has purchased a land of
Rs.6.4 lakhs is also been admitted and there is a flat in Noida and also a
flat in Pune in the name of his father. He further admitted that he did not
provide any maintenance to his wife.
9. In these backgrounds, the learned Court has found that the O.P.
No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. There are two
2025:JHHC:28142
daughters out of the wedlock, one is residing with the petitioner and the
younger daughter is residing with O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 left the
matrimonial home since 18.12.2022 and she is residing in parental home
and it is pointed out that the complaint case has been lodged by the O.P.
No.2. Learned Court has also taken into consideration that the O.P. No.2
is working in BPO and she earns Rs.8,000/-. In light of that the learned
Court has further considered the petition filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and for that he considered the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh V. Neha reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324 as well as the case of Iqbal Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 785 and it has been found that the status of the
petitioner is above the O.P. No.2. Petitioner being the husband is bound
to maintain the wife. The learned Court found that the amount earned by
the wife is meager, that is not sufficient for maintenance for two persons
and after considering the income and other liabilities, the learned Court
has passed the impugned order.
10. In light of above discussions by the learned Court, this Court has
found no illegality in the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
R.Kumar
