Dismissed¶23

Sunil Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Sept 2025Cr.Rev./571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance — Section 125 Cr.PC — sub-section (5) conditions: wife living in adultery, refusal without sufficient reason to live in matrimonial house, or separation by mutual consent — onus on husband — interim maintenance Rs.8,000/- per month — wife alleged to earn Rs.40,000/-, no material produced — husband a government employee (BDO) bound to maintain wife — no illegality in Family Court order — Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2024 — decided 08.09.2025 — Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. — petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Sub-section (5) of section 125 CrPC applies only if it is proved before the court that the wife is living in adultery, or has without sufficient reason refused to live in the matrimonial house, or that the parties are residing separately by mutual consent. ¶21

Sunil Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.10.2023 granting interim maintenance to O.P.No.2 under section 125 Cr.PC is liable to be set aside on the ground that she is earning herself and that sub-section (5) of section 125 CrPC disentitles her to maintenance.

¶16

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The onus of proving the ingredients of sub-section (5) of section 125 CrPC lies upon the petitioner (husband).

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to bring on record any material to suggest that O.P.No.2 earns Rs.40,000/-, and no prescription of any mental disorder of O.P.No.2 was produced; the impugned order is interim in nature allowing only Rs.8,000/- per month.ratio¶22
The petitioner, being the husband (a government employee holding the post of BDO), is bound to maintain his wife, and he has not been able to prove the conditions made in sub-section (5) of section 125 CrPC.ratio¶22
Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision against the order dated 17.10.2023 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No.221 of 2022, whereby the wife's petition under section 125 Cr.PC was allowed with interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month. Held, dismissing the revision: for sub-section (5) of section 125 CrPC to apply — disqualifying a wife from maintenance — it must be proved that she is living in adultery, or has without sufficient reason refused to live in the matrimonial house, or that the parties reside separately by mutual consent, and the onus of showing these ingredients lies on the husband-petitioner. The petitioner, a government employee holding the post of BDO, produced no material to suggest that O.P.No.2 earns Rs.40,000/- per month and no prescription of any mental disorder of O.P.No.2; the impugned order being interim in nature and limited to Rs.8,000/- per month, the Court found no illegality and dismissed the petition, disposing of pending petitions, if any, accordingly.

¶1

2025:JHHC:26997

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2024

¶3

----

¶4

Sunil Prakash aged about 41 years won of Mahavir Kumar resident of Ward No.27, Gaushala Road, House No.453, In front of Shiv Mandir, Jhumri Tilaya, PO and PS Jhumri Tilaya District Koderma, Jharkhand, Official address, B.D.O. Office Block Managu, PO Manatu, PS Manatu, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

¶5

-- Versus --

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Tanuja Kumari, W/o Sunil Prakash, daughter of late Subhash Chandra Prasad, resident of Hesal, Devi Mandap Road, Ranchi, PO and PS Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand …. Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

--For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate Ms Karishma Kumari, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate ----

¶11

2 /08.09.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining

¶12

his prayer to the order dated 17.10.2023 in the present criminal revision and he is not pressing other orders under challenge in the present petition and he submits in view of that, this petition may kindly be heard considering the order dated 17.10.2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State submits that it is upon the Court to decide the same in absence of the order dated 04.03.2024.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶15

This petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.221 of 2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed under section 125 Cr.PC by the O.P.No.2 has been allowed by the learned court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of sub section 5 of section 125 CrPC the OP No.2 is not entitled for maintenance as she is earning herself and in view of that the learned court has wrongly passed the said order. On these grounds, he submits that the

¶17

1 Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2024

¶18

2025:JHHC:26997

¶19

order may kindly be set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that not even a single chit of paper was produced before the learned court and the learned court by way of interim maintenance has passed the said order and has directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the O.P.No.2.

¶21

So far as sub section 5 of section 125 CrPC is concerned, it is required to be proved before the learned court that wife is living in adultery or without any sufficient reason she has refused to live in matrimonial house and they are residing separately by way of mutual consent and if these conditions are fulfilled then only sub section 5 of section 125 CrPC will apply and onus lies upon the petitioner to show these ingredients to apply sub section 5 of section 125 CrPC.

¶22

From the impugned order, it transpires that petitioner has not been able to bring on record any chit of paper to suggest that OP No.2 is earning Rs.40,000/- and even no prescription was brought on record before the learned court of any mental disorder of OP No.2. The order is interim in nature and only Rs.8,000/- per month is allowed to be paid to the OP No.2 and petitioner happened to be government employee holding post of BDO in Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner, being husband, is bound to maintain his wife and the petitioner has not been able to prove so far as the conditions made in sub section 5 of section 125 CrPC is concerned and the order is interim in nature and the Court

¶23

finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.

¶24

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

SI/

¶27

2 Cr. Revision No. 571 of 2024

Sunil Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Raman Jee Tiwary Vs Chandani Tiwary

Sagir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand