Facts of the Case

This is a purely family-law matter and has no connection to GST law. Mahabir Prasad filed Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2022 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi challenging a judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Principal Judge-cum-Family Court, Latehar, in Original Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2019. The Family Court had allowed the maintenance petition filed by his wife, Shakuntala Devi (opposite party No. 2), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.15,000 per month with adjustment against amounts already paid under a related civil suit. The wife's case was that she was married to the petitioner in 1987, had three children, and that the petitioner had developed an extramarital relationship, tortured her, filed a divorce suit against her, and stopped supporting her since 2015, despite earning substantial income from farming, land, and business.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Family Court's maintenance order was legally sustainable given the evidence and pleadings on record.
  2. Whether the Family Court ought to have called for affidavits of assets and liabilities from both parties.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The husband contended that the maintenance amount awarded was excessive and not properly justified.
  • He argued procedural infirmities in how the Family Court assessed the parties' respective incomes and assets.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The wife maintained that she had no independent income, was dependent on her husband, and that he was concealing his real income from farming, land holdings, and three electronic shops.
  • She argued that the husband had not denied owning a three-storeyed house, land at several places, and multiple shops.

Court Order / Findings

  • Justice Sanjay Prasad held that the Family Court's judgment was well-reasoned and a speaking order.
  • The Court found no illegality in awarding Rs.15,000 per month in maintenance, given the husband's undisputed and undenied assets and business interests.
  • The maintenance order was upheld with a modification as recorded in the judgment.
  • Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2022 was dismissed, without costs.

Important Clarification

If this judgment reached you searching for GST content, it is a false match — the case is entirely about Section 125 CrPC maintenance obligations between spouses. There is no GST issue, notification, or provision discussed anywhere in the order.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125 (maintenance).

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioner-husband; the maintenance order in favour of the wife was upheld with modification, and the revision was dismissed.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2022
Coram: Justice Sanjay Prasad
Date: Pronounced 27.07.2023 (heard 07.09.2022)
Parties: Mahabir Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand & Shakuntala Devi

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.