Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Nathuni Ram, resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Poonam Kumari, Wife of Sri Arjun Kumar 3
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025 ---- Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Nathuni Ram, resident of Mohalla – Tikar, Banshidhar, PO and PS – Nagar Untari, District – Garhwa .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Poonam Kumari, Wife of Sri Arjun Kumar 3. Nikki Kumari, D/o Sri Arjun Kumar 4. Chotu Kumar, S/o Sri Arjun Kumar All are resident of village – Paneribandh, PO and PS – Chainpur, District – Palamau .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, Advocate --- 04/02.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned ---- counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Maintenance Alteration Case No.01 of 2023 whereby the petition filed under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the opposite party No.2 has been allowed and the maintenance amount has been enhanced to Rs.5,000/- to opposite party No.2 and further direction has been made to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to O.P. Nos.3 and 4 each respectively and total comes to Rs.9,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Original Maintenance Case No.105 of 2019 filed by the wife was allowed --1-- Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025 2025:JHHC:35986 on the basis of joint compromise petition by the order dated 24.09.2019
Decision
and the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was disposed of and in that it has been decided that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife. He further submits that thereafter the opposite party No.2 has filed the alteration case under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. which was numbered as Maintenance Alteration Case No.01 of 2023 and the same has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party No.2 and Rs.2,000/- to opposite party Nos.3 and 4 each from the date of order. He then submits that this order has been passed without appreciating the fact that the petitioner is a labourer and he is not able to pay the said amount and in view of that there is no changed circumstance as such the order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband and in view of living cost today only a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been enhanced for maintenance of the wife and Rs.2,000/- to opposite party Nos.3 and 4 each have been provided. He further submits that at the time of marriage the petitioner was working as a LIC Agent and the other incomes have been discussed by the learned Court and thereafter he passed the order, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order and in view of that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. It is an admitted position that earlier petition filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Original Maintenance Case No.105 of 2019 was disposed of on the basis of the compromise by --2-- Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025 2025:JHHC:35986 the order dated 24.09.2019 and it was agreed that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and thereafter the present alteration case has been filed by the wife in the changed circumstance for enhancement of the maintenance amount. In her examination in chief, the opposite party No.2 has stated before the learned Court that her husband is a LIC Agent from which he earns Rs.25,000/- per month and in cross-examination she has maintained that. She has also stated that her husband has house at three places, two houses are in Ward No.12, Tikar Mohallah, Banshidhar and one house is in Raksa Mohalla but she was not able to tell the Khata and Plot number of the land of all the houses. On the query by the Court, she has stated that she is B.A. pass and has also done ANM training but she is not able to do any work as her son is aged about 4 years. She further stated that the family is having concrete houses. 6. PW-2, who happened to be the father of the opposite party No.2, has stated that Rs.4,000/- was fixed on the basis of the compromise in Original Maintenance Case No. 105/2019 and that order was five to six years earlier and now she is not able to maintain herself and the children. 7. In the affidavit of assets and liabilities, opposite party No.2 has disclosed that she is B.A. pass and she is living in her parental house. She has also disclosed that her all the expenses are about Rs.20,000/- per month. 8. Petitioner herein pleaded before the learned Court that he is unemployed and he lives at his house and do agriculture work wherein it --3-- Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025 2025:JHHC:35986 has been argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is doing the labourer work. The argument itself is contradictory in light of the statement of the petitioner before the learned Court which has come in paragraph No.19 of the judgment. 9. OPW-1 and 2 have also stated similarly. OPW-2, who happened to be father, has further stated that his son was voluntarily ready to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to his wife. The petitioner herein has also stated before the learned Court that he used to give Rs.5,000/- to his wife for household expenses and also Rs.4,000/- for her personal expenses and he has further admitted that since March, 2021 he is not giving any maintenance to his wife and Rs.9,000/- he used to pay to the wife in the year 2019. The monthly income of the husband was disclosed as Rs.50,000/- per month and further income of Rs.80,000/- per annum from agriculture and that has been stated on the affidavit but it has not been proved by way of filing any document. In light of these facts, the learned Court has come to the conclusion that correct picture has not been disclosed by the petitioner and considering the liability the learned Court has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- for the wife and Rs.2,000/- for opposite party Nos.3 and 4 each. 10. Section 127 of Cr.P.C. is meant for alteration of the order of maintenance in the changed circumstance. The Court is required to consider the changed circumstances of both the sides i.e. husband and wife and that has been held in several cases. A dignified life after separation is a right not a handout. The maintenance is not charity but a --4-- Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025 2025:JHHC:35986 legal right aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards. 11. The expression ‘change in the circumstances’ ordinarily implies a change in the material circumstances of the party, his property or otherwise, the increase or decrease of his liabilities and so forth. The ‘change in the circumstances’ means change in the existence of circumstances of the party paying or receiving the allowance, which would justify an increase or decrease of the amount of the monthly payment originally fixed. The ‘circumstances’ contemplated must include financial circumstances, and in that view, the inquiry as to the change of circumstances must extend to a change of financial circumstances of the wife. The Court has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The growth of the child, or the birth of another child, or the death of a child is a change in the circumstances. The rise in the cost of living is such a change. The advance in age of the child is a fact that the children are grown up and are no longer unable to maintain themselves amounts to a change in the circumstances. The change of circumstance as envisaged in Section 127 Cr.P.C. contemplates not only change in relation to wife, but also the husband opposite party. When the husband begins to earn more the wife can apply under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for increasing the rate of maintenance. Similarly, when the wife begins to earn, the husband can approach the learned Magistrate under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for --5-- Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025 2025:JHHC:35986 reducing the amount of maintenance. In light of the above, only factor under the said Section is to find out what are the change in the circumstances. 12. What has been discussed here-in-above and the materials which has been taken into consideration by the learned Court, there is no doubt that there is change in circumstances. The petitioner being husband and in light of first agreement, he is bound to maintain the wife and the children. 13. Considering all the matters the learned Court has passed the order. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this criminal revision petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 02.12.2025 Sangam/ Uploaded on --6-- Criminal Revision No. 923 of 2025