Dismissed¶28

Abhishek Pandey v. Somi Pandey

Jharkhand HC8 Sept 2025Cr.Rev./196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance wife; criminal revision dismissed; condonation of delay 43 days I.A. No.4433 of 2023; Family Court Koderma Original Maintenance Case No.140 of 2019; Judgment dated 26.09.2022 upheld; Rs.3500 per month maintenance; petitioner graduate TATA employee monthly income Rs.35,000; six shops Doranda Bazar rent Rs.12,000; agricultural land; husband bound to maintain wife; no illegality in impugned judgment; Trial Court Record sent back; High Court of Jharkhand Ranchi; Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 43 days in filing the Criminal Revision is condoned in view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, and I.A. No.4433 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of. ¶16

Abhishek Pandey Vs Somi Pandey — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 43 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition should be condoned. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The delay of 43 days in filing the Criminal Revision is condoned in view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, and I.A. No.4433 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Family Court's findings — that the petitioner is a graduate, an employee in TATA Company with monthly income of Rs.35,000/-, having ancestral property at Doranda Bazar with six shops yielding Rs.12,000/- monthly rent and agricultural land — show the maintenance order was passed on cogent reasons; the petitioner, being the husband, is bound to maintain the wife.

¶24

Key takeaways

While upholding the maintenance direction, the Court observed in passing that the awarded amount of Rs.3500/- appears very meager, but did not alter or enhance it.obiter¶24
There is no illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.140 of 2019; accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed and the Trial Court Record is to be sent back forthwith.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision — Section 125 Cr.P.C. — Maintenance of wife — Condonation of delay — High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) dismisses Cr. Revision No.196 of 2023 (decided 08.09.2025). Delay of 43 days in filing condoned; I.A. No.4433 of 2023 allowed and disposed of. The revision assailed the Judgment dated 26.09.2022 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.140 of 2019, directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.3500/- per month to O.P. No.1 from the date of application, payable by the 26th of each succeeding month. Petitioner pleaded inability to pay, claiming to work as a labourer. The Court noted the Family Court's findings that the petitioner is a graduate employed in TATA Company earning Rs.35,000/- per month, owns ancestral property at Doranda Bazar with six shops fetching Rs.12,000/- monthly rent, and holds agricultural land; observed the amount 'very meager' but held the husband bound to maintain the wife and the order founded on cogent reasons; found no illegality in the impugned judgment and dismissed the revision, directing return of the Trial Court Record.

¶1

2025:JHHC:27001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No.196 of 2023

¶4

Abhishek Pandey, aged about 28 years, Son of Babulal Pandey, Resident of Village-Inderwa Basti, Near Chhath Talab, Ward No. 05, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, Dist.-Koderma … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Somi Pandey, Wife of Abhishek Pandey, Resident of Village-Inderwa Basti, Near Chhath Talab, Ward No. 05, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.Telaiya, Dist. Koderma, presently residing at C/o Nandkishor Pandey, Village Gumo, Ward No.20, Muhalla- Pandey Tola, P.O.- Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, Dist. Koderma.

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

… Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner	:	Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate.
For the State	:	Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP
For O.P. No.1	:	None
	------

¶13

6/08.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Notice to the O.P. No.1 has been effected and the counsel for O.P. No.1 has appeared through Vakalatnama , but on repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of O.P. No.1.

¶14

I.A. No.4433 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is delay of 43 days in filing this Petition and it may kindly be condoned.

¶16

In view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, the delay of 43 days in filing the Criminal Revision is hereby condoned.

¶17

Accordingly, I.A. No.4433 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

¶18

This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the

¶19

¶20

2025:JHHC:27001

¶21

Judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.140 of 2019, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.3500/- per month to the O.P. No.1 which shall be payable by 26^th day of each succeeding month and the maintenance amount is directed to be paid from the date of application.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of O.P. No.1 and he is not able to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- as he is doing the work of labour and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the husband and he is bound to maintain the wife and by the impugned order, the maintenance has been allowed by the learned Court.

¶24

The learned Court considering the evidence led by O.P. No.1 and other witnesses found that it has been proved that petitioner is a graduate, employee in TATA Company and his monthly income is Rs.35,000/-. Learned Court further found that the petitioner is having ancestral property in Doranda Bazar where there are six shops, from which he gets monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- and he is also having agricultural land. Considering all these aspects, learned Court has allowed maintenance of Rs.3500/- to pay to the wife. It appears that the amount is very meager. The petitioner being the husband is bound to maintain the wife and on the cogent reason, the order has been passed.

¶25

¶26

2025:JHHC:27001

¶27

In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.140 of 2019.

¶28

As such, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. Let the Trial Court Record be sent back forthwith.

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

R.Kumar

¶31

Abhishek Pandey v. Somi Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Pandey v. Somi Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishwash Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Rajwar Alias Pradeep Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raman Jee Tiwary Vs Chandani Tiwary

Sunil Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand