JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Maintenance Case No.85/2022, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the said maintenance case filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing the said maintenance case i.e. 25.11.2022, which will be payable by 10 th day of each succeeding month and the petitioner has been further directed to make payment of all arrear amount of Rs.1,48,818/- within one year from the date of the impugned order in two installments. 3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly opposite party no.2 is the wife of the petitioner and the wife has filed the said maintenance case against her husband for maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month for herself stating therein that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are legally married husband and wife and the marriage was solemnized on 12.07.2017 as per Muslim rites and ritual and the parent of opposite party no.2 had given cash of Rs.4 Lakhs and jewellery along with house hold articles worth Rs.3 Lakhs to the petitioner at the time of marriage. On 26.06.2018, opposite party no.2 gave birth of a female child but due to illness she died on 17.02.2022. Opposite party no.2 has further stated in the said case that the petitioner has illicit relationship with another lady in the same village and when opposite party no.2 objected, the petitioner and his family members used to assault upon her, for which several time Panchayati was held between the family member of both the parties but due to behaviour of the petitioner, opposite party no.2 lives in her parent’s house due to compulsion. Opposite party no.2 has also stated in the said maintenance case that the petitioner is working as a contractor and he has a tractor and he earns about 1 Lakh per month. Opposite party no.2 has also stated in the said maintenance case that the petitioner is working as a contractor and he has a tractor and he earns about 1 Lakh per month. She has further stated that the petitioner earns Rs.80,000/- from the business of cattle and Rs.60,000/- from the agriculture and the petitioner has a pucca house in the village Toto. In these backgrounds, the said maintenance case was filed by opposite party no.2. 4. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the learned Court has not assessed the income of the petitioner in its right direction. He submits that the petitioner is having no capacity to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. He also draws attention of the Court to the cross-examination of opposite party no.2, which has been annexed with this criminal revision petition and submits that in the cross- examination, opposite party no.2 has admitted that she is not ready to live at the place where the petitioner is residing and in view of that, there is no cause of action to live separately, however, she is residing separately. He then submits that in the cross-examination, opposite party no.2 has also stated that once sum of Rs.7 Lakhs was demanded by her. He next submits that the petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party no.2. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside as the above facts have not been considered by the learned Court. 5. Mr. Praful Jojo, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Court has given cogent reason for passing such order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He also submits that the learned Court has rightly assessed the assets and liabilities of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another , (2021) 2 SCC 324 . On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and finds that it is an admitted position that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife respectively and there is no divorce as yet. Opposite party no.2 has filed maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, in which, the learned Court has framed three issues to decide the said case. In light of the documentary as well as oral evidence, the learned Court has concluded that there is no dispute so far as marriage is concerned. 7. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to not residing of opposite party no.2 along with the petitioner is concerned, that has been taken care of and discussed by the learned Court at paragraph 13 of the impugned order. In the cross-examination, on which, much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, opposite party no.2 has clearly stated that she was assaulted by the petitioner and his family members and if such a situation was there, it is a sufficient cause to leave the house of the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 has also stated that the petitioner has not tried to take her to the matrimonial house and in view of that, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to make out the case of not paying maintenance amount, is not a good ground. 8. Coming to the said conclusion of payment of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party by the petitioner, the learned Court has considered several judgments of the Apex Court and, thereafter, he has come to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband and he is required to maintain the wife. The learned Court has taken care of all parameters of deciding the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and he has also considered assets and liabilities in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra). 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband and he is required to maintain the wife. The learned Court has taken care of all parameters of deciding the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and he has also considered assets and liabilities in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra). 9. In view of the above facts, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 10. If the petitioner is ready to keep the wife and willing to compromise the matter, the petitioner is having remedy to file appropriate petition before the competent Court for restitution of conjugal right under Mohammedan Laws.