[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Vivek Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:1396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1002 of 2025
Vivek Kumar Gupta, aged about 32 years, son of Vishnu Prasad Gupta,
resident of Near D.A.V. School, Dari Muhalla, Chankaya Hotel, P.O. & P.S.
Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Annu Gupta, wife of Vivek Kumar Gupta,
3. Laxmi Kumari, D/o Vivek Kumar Gupta, represented through her
mother Annu Gupta w/o Vivek Kumar Gupta
Both opposite party No.2&3 are presently residing at Chankya Hotel,
Purana Bazar, Dari Mohalla, PO & PS. Bankmore, Distrcit- Dhanbad.
... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, APP
For OP No.2&3 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
------
2/19.01.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant.
2. IA No. 12781 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the delay of
28 days in filing of the revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner due to livelihood residing at Jamshedpur and when it has come
to the knowledge to the petitioner about the order passed by the learned
Family Court Dhanbad, the preparation has been made and the criminal
revision has been filed, in view of that, the delay has occurred.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is delay
of 28 days and that can be condoned.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 opposed
the prayer and submits that it is not clear that how the petitioner was
staying at Jamshedpur. In view of that the IA meant for condonation of
2026:JHHC:1396
delay may kindly be rejected.
6. Considering that the delay is only of 28 days and in view of the
submission of the petitioner and the averments made in the IA, sufficient
cause is made out to condone the delay of 28 days.
7. As such, the delay of 28 days is hereby condoned and the IA No.
12781 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.
8. This petition has been filed for challenging the illegality and
propriety of judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance
Case No. 587 of 2023, whereby the learned court has been pleased to
allow the petition filed under section 125 of the CrPC and directed the
petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 and
Rs.8,000/- to the opposite party No.3 per month and the same shall be
paid by the 10th day of each succeeding calendar month. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not able to pay
the said amount as the petitioner is only earning Rs.11,000/- by way of
doing a job and in that view of the matter, he submits that excessive
amount order has been passed in the impugned order. He also submits
that the wife is residing in Chanakya Hotel, which is of his father and in
view of that the impugned order may kindly be rejected.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter is
arising out of section 125 of the CrPC and seeing the status of both the
sides, the learned court has rightly passed the order.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 and 3
opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has found that the
said Chanakya Hotel is of the petitioner and of his father and his father
2026:JHHC:1396
has disclosed earning from the hotel is Rs.02 lakh. In view of that, the
learned court has rightly passed the order.
11. Learned court has found that the Chanakya Hotel is an ancestral
property of the petitioner and the license for running the hotel has been
earlier issued in the name of the petitioner and in view of that the learned
court has rightly found that the petitioner is the owner of Chanakya Hotel
as the license has been issued in his name. The father of the petitioner
has deposed that he is the owner of the Chanakya Hotel and his monthly
income from the hotel is Rs.2 lakh and the wife has filed affidavit before
the learned court and disclosed her income nil and the petitioner herein
showing the income of Rs. 11,000/- per month. However, the learned
court considered that from the hotel, earning of Rs.2 lakh has been
disclosed, none other than the father of the petitioner and the license is in
the name of the petitioner.
12. In view of that, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and
Rs.8,000/- per month respectively has been passed by the learned court
under section 125 of the CrPC, sufficient cogent reason has been given in
the said order. No case for interference is made out.
13. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Pending petitions
if any also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
19.01.2026
R.Kumar
