Raman Jee Tiwary Vs Chandani Tiwary

2025:JHHC:27137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No.240 of 2023

Raman Jee Tiwary @ Ramanji Tiwari, aged about 51 years, son of Late Ras Bihari Tiwary, @ R.B. Tiwari, resident of Surya Path, Baridih Colony (Beside Netaji Subhash Public School), P.O. Baridih, P.S. – Sidhgora, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, PIN 831017

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chandani Tiwary @ Chandani Tiwari, D/o N.N. MIshra, W/o Raman Jee Tiwary @ Ramanji Tiwari, Resident of Surya Path, Baridih Colony (Beside Netaji Subhash Public School), P.O. Baridih, P.S. – Sidhgora, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner	------ :	Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State	:	Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP
For O.P. No.1	: ------	Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate

¶12

6/08.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶13

I.A. No.5017 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the delay of

¶14

200 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶16

petitioner is trying to settle the matter with O.P. No.1, which is not occurred and in view of that, such delay of 200 days in filing this Petition is there and the delay may kindly be condoned.

¶17

Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that there is no sufficient explanation in the said I.A. for condoning the delay and in view of that, the delay may not be condoned.

¶18

Considering the statement made in Para-4 of the interlocutory application as the petitioner was trying was to settle the matter with O.P., the delay of 200 days in filing the Criminal Revision is hereby condoned.

¶19

1

¶20

2025:JHHC:27137

¶21

Accordingly, I.A. No. 5017 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

¶22

This Revision petition has been preferred against the Judgment dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, East Singhbhum, Jasmshedpur passed in Original Maintenance Case No.43 of 2017, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby the leaned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- to the opposite party as monthly maintenance allowance.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner on merit submits that the learned Court has been pleased to allow a sum of Rs.15,000/- to pay to O.P. as maintenance is on higher side. He further submits that the learned Court has not properly examined the status of both the parties and passed the impugned order, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. He then submits that the petitioner is ready to compromise the matter with the wife.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is the husband and the learned Court considering all the aspects has rightly passed the impugned order.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1 submits that the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been travelled up to the High Court in first appeal filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. He further submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality.

¶26

The learned Court has found in the light of pay slip produced by

¶27

2

¶28

2025:JHHC:27137

¶29

the O.P., that the petitioner receives salary of Rs.54,051/-, the basic salary is Rs.36,740/- and VDA is around Rs.9,258/- Thus the salary without allowance is around Rs.45,998/- The petitioner is staying in his house and also getting HRA of Rs.3674/- It has further been found that the petitioner has three brothers and all are taking care of their mother. Considering all these aspects, the learned Court has passed the impugned order.

¶30

It appears that the salary of the petitioner is around Rs.45,998/in the light of pay slip and considering all the aspects, learned Court has passed the impugned order. Petitioner is the husband and he is bound to maintain his wife. A sum of Rs.15,000/- per month has been directed to pay as maintenance by the petitioner to his wife. In view of above, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jasmshedpur passed in Original Maintenance Case No.43 of 2017.

¶31

In view of the above, this Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

R.Kumar

¶34

3

Raman Jee Tiwary v. Chandani Tiwary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman Jee Tiwary v. Chandani Tiwary

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

Abhishek Pandey Vs Somi Pandey

Sunil Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand