[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Amit Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:1361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.969 of 2025
Amit Dubey, Aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Gopal Dubey, R/o Village
House No.2, Rajeev Nagar, Road No. 21 P.O. & P.S.-Rajeev Nagar,
Dist.-Patna, (Bihar). ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Moni Kumari Pandey, aged about 36 years, Wife of Amit Dubey alias
Amit Kumar, D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, resident of Village Pirra,
P.O & P.S: Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Pihu, aged about 8 years, represented through her mother Moni
Kumari Pandey, resident of village Pirra, P.O & P.S: Ratu, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate
Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Muskan, Advocate
------
3/19.01.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party No.2 and 3.
2. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment
dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.354 of 2019,
whereby the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to
pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2
(wife) and Rs.7,000/- per month to the minor daughter, opposite
party No.3 and the total amount comes to Rs.15,000/-.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
learned Court has wrongly passed the impugned order of
maintenance without considering the aspect of the matter that the
2026:JHHC:1361
wife is living in adultery. He submits that this has been disclosed in
the written statement and the learned Court did not give any finding
on that, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the
petitioner is the husband and he is bound to maintain the wife and
children under Section 125 of the CrPC.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 & 3
opposed the prayer and submits that no argument has been made
before the learned Court with regard to the adultery and in view of
that, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order. She
submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband and he is
bound to maintain the wife and children.
6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties the Court has gone through the documents on record.
7. In a petition, many points are being taken, however, it is for the
counsel, who is appearing before the Court, to argue that aspect and
prove it by way of leading the evidence, even if it is considered that
the petitioner has taken that ground, however that point has not been
argued before the learned Court as it has been pointed out by the
learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 & 3.
8. It has come in the order of the learned Court that the marriage
between the petitioner and opposite party was solemnized way back
on 10.03.2016 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals and
the daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 15.07.2017. It has
come in the evidence that both the parties are living separately since
2026:JHHC:1361
13.11.2016. The witnesses have stated that the wife and her parents
have made every possible effort to settle the dispute between both the
parties, even they met with the employer, i.e., the learned District
Judge, Deoghar, who has also convinced the opposite party, but all
the efforts went in vain. The wife has also given application before
the Jharkhand High Court and Mahila Aayog for settlement, but no
fruitful result has come out. The witnesses have stated that the
petitioner is an Assistant in Madhupur Civil Court in the district of
Deoghar, Jharkhand and the petitioner herein has also admitted
before the learned Court that he is posted as Assistant in the Civil
Court, Madhupur. Salary slip of the petitioner was brought before the
learned Court and the learned Court has found that the petitioner's
salary was fixed to the tune of Rs.59,240/- and he was taking net pay
to the tune of Rs.49,060/-. The father of the petitioner is also a retired
employee and he is also getting pension of Rs.33,000/- and the
learned Court has found that there is no other liability apart from his
children and wife. In these backgrounds, the learned Court has been
pleased to pass the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per
month to his wife and Rs.7,000/- to child per month respectively in
favor of opposite party No. 2 & 3.
9. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned
order and as such, this revision petition is dismissed. Pending
petitions, if any also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
19.01.2026
R.Kumar
