IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 694 of 2025 ----

Kumari Arpana .... Petitioner -- Versus --

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Santosh Kumar .... Opposite Parties With Criminal Revision No. 1390 of 2023 ----

Santosh Kumar .... Petitioner -- Versus --

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kumari Arpana .... Opposite Parties ----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ---

Criminal Revision No. 694 of 2025 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ayush, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate For O.P. No.2 :- Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate Criminal Revision No. 1390 of 2023 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate For O.P. No.2 :- Mr. Ayush, Advocate ----

06/19.01.2026 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be wife in Cr. Rev. No.694 of 2025 and the present revision petition has been filed for enhancement of maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court, Deoghar. He further submits that husband has also filed Cr. Rev. No.1390 of 2023 challenging the maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner and that has already been admitted. He then submits that I.A. No.8817 of 2024 in Cr. Rev. No.694 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the delay of 384 days in filing of the present criminal revision petition. He next submits that the petitioner is a medical student and had to stay in Janakpur, Nepal and owing to her rigorous academic schedule she couldn’t take a follow-up of the disposal of her Original Maintenance Case from her Advocate. He also submits that while she was pursuing her carrier as a medical student marriage was solemnized, therefore, the study was left over and when the matrimonial dispute arose, thereafter she has further pursued her study and in view of that such delay has occurred. He next submits that the delay may kindly be condoned.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State has got no serious objection if such delay is condoned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that husband has already challenged the said maintenance case in Cr. Rev. No.1390 of 2023 and there is no sufficient explanation to condone the delay of 384 days and in view of that said delay may kindly be rejected.

4. Considering that the petitioner was married while she was pursuing her medical studies and thereafter it has been pointed out that she has not able to complete the medical studies and after matrimonial dispute she has again pursued the same and she has not been able to contact her Advocate and in view of that the delay of 384 days has occurred.

5. The Court finds that sufficient grounds is made out for condoning the delay of 384 days, as such the delay of 384 days is hereby condoned.

6. I.A. No.8817 of 2024 in Cr. Rev. No.694 of 2025 is hereby allowed and disposed of.

7. By order dated 31.07.2025 there is already an order of hearing both the petitions together.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that I.A. No.8741 of 2025 filed in Cr. Revision No.1390 of 2023 for extension of time has become infructuous as a sum of Rs.5 lacs has already been paid to the wife in terms of earlier order of this Court.

9. I.A. No.8741 of 2025 is disposed of as infructuous.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated 19.01.2026 Sangam/