Dismissed¶20

Hiralal Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jun 2026Cr.Rev./61/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; Family Court Dumka; Original Maintenance Case No. 59 of 2023; Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2026; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; proof of marriage; quantum of maintenance; Rs. 2,000/- per month maintenance; petitioner's income Rs. 8,000/-; Hiralal Ray; Sotirung; Neutral Citation (2026:JHHC:16311); revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision application was dismissed and the maintenance order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 59 of 2023 was left undisturbed. ¶20

Hiralal Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:16311 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Hiralal Ray son of late Bideshi Ray, R/o Village Raibandh Anchal, PO & PS Kathikund Sub-division, District Dumka, Jharkhand

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Sotirung wife of Hiralal Ray, R/o Village Raibandh Anchal, PO & PS Kathikund Sub-division, District Dumka … … Opp. parties

¶8

… Opp. parties

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. P. Gupta, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 1 : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, A.P.P.

¶12

¶13

2/08.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

This application is directed against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 59 of 2023 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been ordered to make payment of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has not been proved. It has further been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is a resident of the State of Mizoram, whereas the petitioner works as a labourer in the State of Jharkhand and there is no question of the petitioner having an acquaintance with the opposite party no. 2 resulting in solemnization of marriage. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the materials available on record while awarding Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made in this application.

¶17

It appears that the petitioner has failed to disprove the fact that he was not married to the opposite party no. 2 and the learned trial court

¶18

-2-

¶19

has properly considered the said fact. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the petitioner earns an amount of Rs. 8,000/- and based on the aforesaid, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance.

¶20

There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 59 of 2023, I do not find any merit in this application which accordingly stands dismissed.

¶21

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶22

8^th June 2026 R. Shekhar Cp 3 Uploalded

Hiralal Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiralal Ray v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Xxx Vs the State of Jharkhand

Maheshwar Pingua Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

X Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand