Dismissed¶¶30

Ravi Gorai v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2025Cr.Rev./654/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.125 CrPC maintenance upheld; condonation of 372-day filing delay; Family Court Dhanbad judgment 18.01.2024 (OMC No.115 of 2021) affirmed — Rs.4,000/- p.m. to wife, Rs.3,000/- p.m. to daughter; petitioner's income assessed at Rs.21,000/- p.m.; alleged dowry demand Rs.03 lakh; pending divorce suit OSC No.652 of 2020; petition dismissed. Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance, condonation of delay, Cr. Revision No.654 of 2025, Ravi Gorai v. State of Jharkhand & Shilpa Gorai, High Court of Jharkhand, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 372 days in filing the Cr. Revision is condoned, and I.A. No.7258 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. ¶¶16

Ravi Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.115 of 2021 (granting maintenance to O.P. No.2 and her daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) should be set aside. +2 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

Taking account of the evidence considered by the Family Court (testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 and the petitioner's assessed monthly earning of Rs.21,000/-, his own version being silent on income), this Court finds no illegality in the impugned maintenance order and declines to interfere, thereby rejecting the petitioner's contention that the maintenance was excessive.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 372 days in filing the Cr. Revision is condoned, and I.A. No.7258 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Cr. Revision No.654 of 2025, decided 01.12.2025 by Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. (single judge). The Court first condoned a delay of 372 days in filing the revision (I.A. No.7258 of 2025 allowed and disposed of). The revision sought setting aside the judgment dated 18.01.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.115 of 2021, whereby maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month was allowed to the petitioner's wife (O.P. No.2) till she alive or remarried and Rs.3,000/- per month to the daughter till her marriage or gainfully employed, pursuant to her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the marriage (solemnised 17.02.2016) could yet be compromised and that the maintenance was 'in higher side'; counsel for O.P. No.2 countered that a compromise had failed, that she had again been driven out, and referred to the petitioner's pending divorce suit (Original Suit Case No.652 of 2020, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad). Recounting the trial-court evidence (PW-1 to PW-3), the Court noted the wife's testimony of physical and mental torture, birth of a daughter, and her expulsion from the matrimonial home on 11.11.2020 amid a demand of Rs.03 lakh dowry, and the petitioner-husband's assessed monthly earning of Rs.21,000/- (plus Rs.10,000/- rental income), his own examination being silent on income. Holding that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that no interference is required, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the maintenance awards intact.

¶1

2025:JHHC:35794

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No.654 of 2025

¶4

Ravi Gorai, Aged about 35 years, Son of Bholanath Gorai, Resident of Sudamdih, Riverside, Qtr. No. M/194, P.O. Sudamdih, P.S. Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand 2. Shilpa Gorai, Aged About 24 years, Wife of Ravi Gorai, Daughter of Niranjan Gorai, Resident of Nunudih Basti, P.O. Pathardih, P.S. Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad. … Opp. Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioner	------ :	Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate.
For the State	:	Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP
For the O.P. No.2	: ------	Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate

¶10

5/01.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

¶11

counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2.

¶12

I.A. No.7258 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of

¶13

372 days in filing the Cr. Revision.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the delay has occurred as the petitioner was trying to compromise the matter, as such, the delay may kindly be condoned.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite party No.2 have got no objection if the delay is condoned.

¶16

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons assigned in the I.A., the delay of 372 days in filing the Cr. Revision is hereby condoned.

¶17

I.A. No.7258 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶18

This petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family CourtII, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.115 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the O.P. No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been

¶19

¶20

2025:JHHC:35794

¶21

allowed by the learned Court and has been pleased to allow maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 till she alive or remarried and Rs.3,000/- per month to her daughter till her marriage or gainfully employed.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2016 at Sudamdih, Dhanbad according to Hindu Rites. He then submits that the learned court has allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- to the O.P. No.2 till she alive or remarried and Rs. Rs.3,000/- per month to her daughter till her marriage or gainfully employed.

¶23

He submits that the petitioner is trying to compromise the matter, however, the wife is not ready. He then submits that the learned court has allowed the maintenance, which is in higher side and in view of that also, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the compromise has taken place, however, the petitioner has again driven out his wife from the matrimonial home and in view of that the compromise is not existing. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a divorce suit being Original Suit Case No.652 of 2020, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. He further submits that if the petitioner is sincere about the compromise, he can take recourse in the said divorce case.

¶25

It is admitted position that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2016. The learned Court has

¶26

¶27

2025:JHHC:35794

¶28

considered the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 as well as exhibits. PW-1 who happened to be O.P. No.2 has stated before the learned Court that she was tortured physically and mentally by her in-laws and out of the wedlock, a daughter was also born and then she was driven out from the matrimonial home on 11.11.2020 demanding Rs.03 lakh dowry otherwise saying that she was not allowed to live in the matrimonial home. She has also stated that the petitioner happened to be an electrician and his monthly income is Rs.21,000/- and he also earns Rs.10,000/- out of letting house on rent. PW-2 and PW-3 have substantiated the version of PW-1. The husband was examined and other witnesses have also been examined on behalf of husband before the learned Court and he has stated about the quarrel between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 His version was silent on the point of income. In view of that the learned Court has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s earing is Rs.21,000/- per month.

¶29

In view of that, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to his wife and Rs.3,000/- to his child respectively. There is no illegality in the impugned order and as such no interference is required.

¶30

In view of that this petition is dismissed.

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

01.12.2025

¶33

R.Kumar

¶34

Ravi Gorai v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Gorai 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

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Saroj Kumar Jha Vs Manu Ray

Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Jaiswal Alias Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khajamuddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Indrajit Kumar Alias Indrajeet Vs the State of Jharkhand