Jharkhand High Court
Rudra Pratap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:33394)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1223 of 2024
Rudra Pratap, aged about 19 years, son of Pankaj Kumar, resident of
Sharma Colony, Behind Gymkhana Club, Hanuman Nagar, Dipatoli,
P.O.-R.M.C.H., P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Pankaj Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of late Ramadhar Sharma,
resident of Village-Kanaiyachak, P.O.-Khairadih, P.S.-Kinjar, Dist.-
Arwal (Bihar)
.... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Rev. No. 809 of 2024
Pankaj Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of late Ramadhar Sharma,
resident of Village-Kanaiyachak, P.O.-Khairadih, P.S.-Kinjar, Dist.-
Arwal (Bihar)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Mamta Devi, wife of Sri Pankaj Kumar, daughter of Sri Ram
Chhabila Sharma
2. Rudra Pratap, son of Sri Pankaj Kumar, (represented through his
mother Mamta Devi)
Both are resident of Sharma Colony, Behind Gymkhana Club,
Hanuman Nagar, Dipatoli, P.O.-R.M.C.H., P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi-
834009
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 1 (2025:JHHC:33394) For the Petitioners : Mr. Saman Ahmad, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2024) : Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2024) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2024) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2024) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2024) For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. (In Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2024) For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2024) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2024) : Mr. Saman Ahmad, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2024) : Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2024) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate (In Cr.M.P. No. 809 of 2024) .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Both these criminal revisions have been filed in respect of the same impugned order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Family Court, Ranchi whereby and where under, the learned Family Court, Ranchi has enhanced the maintenance of the applicant no.1 before it namely Mamta Devi from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.20,000/- per month and maintenance amount of the applicant no.2 -son of the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 herein who was sole opposite party before the Family Court, Ranchi from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and held that applicant no.2 -Rudra Pratap shall be entitled to get maintenance till the date of attaining his majority.Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024
With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 2 (2025:JHHC:33394)
3. The brief fact of the case is that the applicants/petitioners before the learned Family Court, Ranchi filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance which was registered as Original Maintenance Case No. 29 of 2011. The said case was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.12.2011 by the learned Family Court, Ranchi directing the opposite party of the said case; who is the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 809 of 2024 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner no.2, that is, in total Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the said case dated 15.02.2011. The original petitioner then filed an application for alteration of the maintenance allowance by enhancing the same. Vide order dated 01.10.2018 the learned Family Court, Ranchi enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month in respect of applicant no.1 -Mamta Devi and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- to the applicant no.2- Rudra Pratap i.e. in total Rs.13,000/- per month from the date of passing of that order on 01.10.2018. Both the parties preferred Criminal Revision No.18 of 2019 and Cr. Revision No.1296 of 2019 respectively before this Court. Vide order dated 04.01.2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court remanded the matter back for determining income of the husband-opposite party, by giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, fresh evidence was led by both the parties. From the side of the applicants, applicant no.1 was Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 3 (2025:JHHC:33394) examined as A.W.1, applicant no.2 was examined as A.W.2 and the brother of the applicant no.1 was examined as A.W.3. From the side of the opposite party, opposite party himself was examined as the sole witness. He also filed the statement of assets and liabilities.
4. The learned Family Court, Ranchi considered the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 904, wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that Income Tax Returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income, as particularly when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the family court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence, what should be the real income of the opposite party so as to enable the petitioner to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were living together. The learned Family Court, Ranchi also considered that the opposite party has no fixed income as he carries on business of brick kiln and other businesses. The learned Family Court, Ranchi then consider that the undisputed fact remains, that the opposite party has got several landed properties in Patna, Arwal and other places in his own name and in the name of his second wife. The learned Family Court, Ranchi then Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 4 (2025:JHHC:33394) considered that the photographs filed by the applicants, which also shows that opposite party has recently purchased a new Kia Car and went on to hold that the opposite party is having very good income from various sources and after considering the entire materials in the record, came to the conclusion that the opposite party must be at least earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. In arriving at such conclusion the learned Family Court, Ranchi considered the evidence which goes to show that the opposite party is financially sound and leading a luxurious life. The learned Family Court, Ranchi then considered the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025, wherein it was held that object of section 125 Cr.P.C. is amelioration of financial status of wife so that she can sustain herself and sustenance cannot mean mere survival rather the quantum of maintenance has therefore to be so fixed that the wife is entitled to lead a life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband and by thus considering enhanced the maintenance as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment with effect from the date of filing of the maintenance alteration case i.e. 26.07.2016. Cr. Revision No. 1223 of 2024
5. Criminal Revision No. 1223 of 2024 has been filed by the original petitioner/applicant no.2 with the prayer of challenging the portion of the order by which it has been ordered that the Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 5 (2025:JHHC:33394) applicant no.2-petitioner shall be entitled to get maintenance till he attains the age of majority.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.
Revision No.1223 of 2024 by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandrashekar vs. Swapnil & Anr. reported in (2021) 12 SCC 624, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India passed an order extending the period of maintenance to beyond the age of majority. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 1223 of 2024 that the order passed by the learned Family Court, Ranchi to restrict the payment of maintenance to the date of attaining the age of majority by petitioner-applicant no.2 is arbitrary as the petitioner- applicant no.2 can complete only Class- XII by the age of 18 hence, he cannot be forced to feed for himself or to remain dependent upon his non-earning members. Hence, it is submitted that the portion of the impugned judgment by which the payment of maintenance to the applicant no.2 has been restricted to the date on which he will attain majority be deleted.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the verbatim of Section 125 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. itself restrict the payment of maintenance to legitimate and illegitimate minor child only and only if such child is by reason of any Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 6 (2025:JHHC:33394) physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself then in such cases, in exercise of the power under Section 125 (1)
(c) maintenance can be granted but here it is not the case of the applicant no.2 that he by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain himself. So, the provision of Section 125 (1) (c) is not applicable to the facts of the case and this is a case where only provision of Section 125 (1) (b) is attracted; therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Family Court, Ranchi in restricting the maintenance to the date on which the petitioner-applicant no.2 shall attain majority. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal revision no. 1223 of 2024 being without any merit be dismissed.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.--(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain--
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate , as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024
With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 7 (2025:JHHC:33394) Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] Explanation.--For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (Emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the said provision of law makes it abundantly clear that unless a child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can only be granted to a child so long it remains minor and unable to maintain itself.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Family Court, Ranchi in restricting the period for which maintenance is to be given by the opposite party before the learned Family Court, Ranchi, till the petitioner-applicant no.2 attains majority. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity in the portion of the said order restricting the payment of the Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 8 (2025:JHHC:33394) maintenance in respect of the applicant no.2 before the learned Family Court, Ranchi till he attains majority warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 1223 of 2024 being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024
11. So far as the Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024 is concerned, the same has been filed by the original opposite party before the learned Family Court, Ranchi.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.
Revision No. 809 of 2024 by drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no. 5 of the deposition of A.W.4-applicant no.1 dated 23.06.2018 that therein she has categorically stated that on the date of her deposition, the total expenditure of her and her son i.e. the applicant no.2 was in total only Rs.12,000/- so the learned Family Court, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by overlooking this admission and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.30,000/- though admittedly, the expenditure of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 herein was less than half of the amount of the enhanced maintenance of Rs.30,000/- hence, it is submitted that fixing of the date from which the enhanced maintenance is to be applicable is arbitrary. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 9 (2025:JHHC:33394) petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024 that the learned Family Court, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by coming to the conclusion in a mechanical and arbitrarily manner that monthly income of the petitioner-opposite party is Rs.1,50,000/-; in absence of any evidence to that effect and ignoring the cogent evidence put forth by the petitioner-opposite party by filing his income tax return which shows his annual income to be less than Rs.5,00,000/-. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024 that the photograph of the new car filed by the opposite party no.1 and 2 herein, has been purchased by the brother of the petitioner, who is working as an Accounts Clerk in Water Resources Department and the learned Family Court, Ranchi has failed to consider the same. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024 that the learned Family Court, Ranchi has failed to consider that the petitioner always resides at his village hence, the question of him leading a luxurious life does not arise. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024 that as the learned Family Court, Ranchi has failed to take into consideration the materials in the record and fixed the maintenance amount which is highly excessive therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Alteration Case No. 07 of 2016 be set aside being not in accordance with law. Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024
With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 10 (2025:JHHC:33394)
13. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that it is a settled principle of law that income tax return does not necessarily furnish an accurate guide to the real income; particularly in a case of matrimonial conflict. It is next submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that A.W.3 in paragraph no.7 of his deposition has categorically stated about the petitioner-opposite party being involved in five different business i.e.
(i) business of brick kiln;
(ii) working as a contractor;
(iii) doing the business of coal;
(iv) having a factory of gul; and
(v) doing the business of solid fuel.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that there is absolutely no cross-examination of A.W.3 in respect of this testimony of him, categorically stated in paragraph no.7 of his deposition and the consequence is that the same is to be believed, as the same has remained unchallenged in his cross-examination, hence is to be accepted to be truth. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petitioner-opposite party, who was examined as O.P.W.1 in Maintenance Alteration Case No.07 of 2016 on 17.07.2023 in paragraph no.34 has categorically stated that he has not mentioned the details of the immovable property in the statement of his asset and Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 11 (2025:JHHC:33394) liability. In paragraph no.24 he has admitted that in 2009 he purchased a land in Danapur situated in the District of Patna. In paragraph no.30 he has admitted that in the year 2017 he has purchased a property in the District of Arwal. So, under such circumstances in view of the admitted and undisputed fact that the petitioner-opposite party is also involved in several business and is a man of means; which is evident from possession of several immovable property by him, the description of which has been deliberately and admittedly been suppressed by him; therefore, the learned Family Court, Ranchi has not committed any illegality in arriving at the conclusion that the monthly income of the petitioner-opposite party is Rs.1,50,000/- and has directed to pay maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that as admittedly the petitioner-opposite party has not to pay any maintenance to the applicant no.2 after his attaining majority in the year 2023, the only liability towards the maintenance of opposite party is in respect of the applicant no.1 of Rs.30,000/- and considering huge property owned by him and he is living in adultery luxuriously with the lady namely Namita, the learned Family Court, Ranchi has not committed any error in observing that the petitioner-opposite party is leading a luxurious life and thus, the applicant no.1 is also entitled to a status commensurate with that of the petitioner-opposite party. Therefore, it is submitted that this criminal revision being without any merit be dismissed.
Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024
With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 12 (2025:JHHC:33394) 14 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunita Kachwaha & Others vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. The inherent and fundamental principle of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and acquiesce that a woman suffers, when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial house. There has to be some acceptable arrangement so that a woman can sustain herself. 15 It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that a women, who is constrained to leave the matrimonial home should not be allowed to feel that she fell from grace and move hither and thither for sustenance and such a woman is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband and that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation becomes a prominent one. In the case of Manoj Yadav vs. Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1346, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the amount to be awarded as maintenance is the discretion of the Magistrate. Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024
With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 13 (2025:JHHC:33394) 16 Now coming to the facts of the case, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties A.W.3 who was examined after remand of the case, in paragraph no.7 has categorically stated about the petitioner-opposite party being involved in five different business, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement and such testimony of A.W.3 in paragraph no.7 in examination-in-chief has remained unchallenged in his cross- examination. So, the consequence is that the same is to be accepted as truth as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai & Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1204, para-31 of which reads as under :-
"31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See: Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 14 (2025:JHHC:33394) Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 226; State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1328; Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207; and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096)." (Emphasis supplied)
17 There are instances galore where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in the absence of cross-examination of a witness, the evidence of such witness remains unchallenged and ought to be believed. In the case of State of U.P v. Nahar Singh reported in AIR 1998 SC 1328 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 13 and 14 has held as under :
"13. It may be noted here that that part of the statement of PW-1 was not cross-examined by the accused. In the absence of cross examination on the explanation of delay, the evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and ought to have been believed by the High Court. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a valuable right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party. The scope of that provision is enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be questioned :
(1) to test his veracity, (2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.
14. The oft quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn, (1893) 6 The Reports 67, clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions. It reads thus: "I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross- examination showing that that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the circumstances which, it is suggested, indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness, you Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 15 (2025:JHHC:33394) are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses." This aspect was unfortunately missed by the High Court when it came to the conclusion that explanation for the delay is not at all convincing. This reason is, therefore, far from convincing."(Emphasis given by me) 18 It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner herein who was opposite party before the learned Family Court, Ranchi purchased several properties in Danapur in the District of Patna and in the District of Arwal and in his deposition before the family Court, he has also candidly admitted that he has not mentioned the description of his immovable property in the statement of assets and liability filed by him. Under such circumstances, after taking into consideration the materials in the record, this Court do not find any perversity in the Family Court, Ranchi arriving at the conclusion that the monthly income of the petitioner-opposite party was Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Therefore, the awarding of maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the applicant no.1 only after attaining of majority of the applicant no.2 in the year 2023 cannot be said to be perverse. But so far as the date from which the same is applicable is concerned, admittedly in the year 2018 the total monthly expense of the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 taken together was Rs.12,000/- so in view of the admitted facts that has come in the deposition of the A.W.4 dated 23.03.2018, this Court is of the considered view that the date from which the enhanced amount of maintenance to be applicable to both the applicants Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 16 (2025:JHHC:33394) should be 01.01.2020 instead of 26.07.2016. Hence, this Court modifies the impugned order to the aforesaid extent only. 19 Accordingly, the order dated 05.06.2024 passed in Maintenance Alteration Case No. 07 of 2016 is modified only so far as the applicability of the enhanced maintenance as awarded by the said order from 26.07.2016 as mentioned in the said order to 01.01.2020 while maintaining the remaining portion of the impugned order. 20 Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 809 of 2024 is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
21 Let the Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this Judgment to the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 7th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 17/11/2025 Cr. Rev. No.1223 of 2024 With Cr. Rev. No.809 of 2024 17