Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:28461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.777 of 2025
Abhishek Sahu, aged about 34 years, S/o Ajay Prasad, R/o Vill-Kund
Mohalla, near Hanunman Tail Mill, PO-Daltonganj, PS-Town, District-
Palamau, Jharkhand ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jyoti Kumari, W/o Abhishekh Sahu, R/o At- Ranchi, Road, Redma,
Ward No. 20, PO-Daltonganj, PS-Town, District-Palamau, State-
Jharkhand ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Diksha Rani, Advocate
Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, APP
------
2/17.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the
order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.
127/2021 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau
whereby the said Original Maintenance Case No. 127/2021 filed by
the O.P. No.2, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance has been
allowed and the learned Court has directed the petitioner to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of
filing of maintenance application by 10th of every succeeding month
and arrear of maintenance has been directed to pay within one year in
12 equal installments from the date of order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is the husband of O.P. No.2 and the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by O.P. No.2 stating that the marriage was
2025:JHHC:28461
solemnized between her and petitioner on 08.02.2018 at the residence
of the petitioner at Ranchi Road, Redma, Ward No.20 as per the Hindu
Rites and Customs. She further submits that the O.P. No.2 resides at
the matrimonial home for about one year and after then she alleged
that the petitioner started misbehaving with OP and the OP has been
ousted from matrimonial home on 24.09.2021. She submits that on
these backgrounds, the impugned order has been passed without
taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner, which is not in
accordance with the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajnesh V. Neha & Others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC
324. On these grounds, she submits that the impugned order may
kindly be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and
submits that the learned Court has rightly taken into consideration the
income of the petitioner and has found that the petitioner is working in
Axis Bank as Assistant Manager. He further submits that the learned
Court has given cogent reason while passing the said maintenance
amount and all aspects have been taken care of. He further submits
that there is nothing on record to show any illegality in the impugned
order.
5. From the impugned order dated 18.06.2025, it transpires that in
order to substantiate the facts, the OP has produced three witnesses
including herself. The learned Court has appreciated the evidences of
PWs and OPs.
6. PW-1 happens to be the father of the OP. He has stated in his
2025:JHHC:28461
examination-in-chief that this case has been lodged by her daughter
against her husband Abhishek Sahu for her maintenance. The marriage
of her daughter has been solemnized with Abhishek Sahu on
08.02.2018 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Thereafter her
daughter went to her sasural, where she lived anyhow for one year and
the compromise was also made and out of the said wedlock, a female
child has also born, who is aged about 3 ½ years and she is living with
her mother. He further stated that his son-in-law is posted as manager
in Axis Bank, Ranchi. He further stated that petitioner used to assault
and torture to his daughter and dowry has been demanded. He has also
stated that the petitioner is in relation with another girl Neha Sharma
and she is working with the same bank where the petitioner is
working. He has also stated that the father of the petitioner has also
not come to meet the child. He further stated that the petitioner has
two houses in Daltonganj. One is three storied houses, from which he
gets rent of Rs.80-90 thousands and in the second, the petitioner lives
in. Apart from that, 19 decimal lands in Semartand and there is also a
grocery shop in the market. He has stated that from all sources, the
petitioner has income of Rs.2.5 to 03 lakhs.
7. PW-2 Arvind Vishwakarma has stated that the father of the OP
is his friend since childhood and he used to go his house. He has also
supported the case and he has further stated about the income of the
petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner is getting salary of
Rs.80,000/- per month. He further repeated that the petitioner has two
houses in Daltongaj and about three storied houses. He has also
2025:JHHC:28461
stated about the shop and land in Semartand and earns Rs.90,000/- per
month as rent.
8. P.W.-3 is the wife herself, who has lodged the case against the
petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. She has stated that her husband
works in Ranchi in HDFC Bank. She stated that her husband took her
to Ranchi, where she lived properly for six months, but in the
meantime, he got involved in love affair with a girl namely Neha
Sharma. She stated that if the petitioner keeps her well, she is ready to
go with him.
9. The petitioner has been examined as OPW-1 and he has stated
before the learned Court that after marriage, his wife came to his
house at Kund Mohalla, Daltonganj. She lived there only for 6-7 days
and thereafter her wife indulged in altercation with him. He stated that
she lived in her parental home for about two and half years. He also
stated that the dowry case has also been filed against him and they
have reached a settlement in Mediation center, but after then, further
altercation started. He further stated that he is paying Rs.8,000/- per
month to his wife for maintenance and he has lost his job and he
works as an insurance agent and as a loan agent and earns Rs.15-20
thousand per month and this is how, he manages his expenses. He
stated that apart from that, he has not other means of earning. He has
denied that he is still working in Axis Bank and getting salary of
Rs.80,000/- He has been shown a photograph of the girl Neha Sharma
and in photograph, the petitioner is also present.
10. In these backgrounds, the learned Court has appreciated the
2025:JHHC:28461
evidences and found the quantum. He has found that the petitioner
herein admitted that he is working in Axis Bank and his monthly
income is Rs.76,000/-. He resides at Malabar Enclave, Bariyatu,
Ranchi. He is paying EMI of Car loan, personal loan. Petitioner has
been examined himself before the learned Court and in Examination
in Chief, he has stated that he has lost his job. Learned court has
found that no termination letter has been brought on record to
establish that he has lost his job. The learned Court considering the
Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, he found that the
assets and liabilities have been concealed by the petitioner and the
guidelines made therein in the said case, the learned Court by
accepting the guidelines has come to the conclusion of the income of
the petitioner and further considering the EMI and other liabilities and
the salary deposits in his account of January 2022, Rs.89,316, Feb,
2022, Rs.84,209/-, March 2022, Rs.84694/- and so on and in that
period total deposits in his account was Rs.7,45,319.50. The Petitioner
has also filed statement of transaction in Saving A/C of ICICI Bank
for the period September 30, 2020 to September 30, 2021 showing
deposits and withdrawals from his account and during the above
period, total deposits in his account was 9,73,294.45. and during the
period 01.04.2024 to 28.07.2024 showing deposits and withdrawals
from his account and during the above period total deposits in his
account was Rs.33,05,755.17. The ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund
Folio found to be value of Rs.2,68,848.76 as on 17.10.2022, ICICI
2025:JHHC:28461
Prudential India Opportunities Fund Growth having value of
Rs.71,199.22 as on 08.09.2022, HDFC Multi Cap Fund Regular
Growth was found value of Rs.86, 681.02 as on 04.11.2022.
11. On the above ground, the learned Court has further found that
the petitioner is paying Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
Learned Court has further found that the petitioner has stated that he is
earning only Rs.15-20 per month, however, he has admitted that he is
maintaining a car, bike, has investment in mutual funds, paying EMI
of Car loan, personal loan and house rent and on these backgrounds,
the learned Court has passed Rs.20,000/- as maintenance to the wife to
be given by the petitioner and the learned Court has taken care of the
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.
12. In view of above, this Court finds that there is no illegality in
the impugned order passed by the learned Court. In view of that, this
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
R.Kumar
