Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1958 (JHR)

Md. Wazir S/o Sahabuddin v. State of Jharkhand

2025-10-06

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Md. Nasim Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in Original Maintenance Case No.263/2023, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the said maintenance case and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to his married wife, who is opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to his legitimate minor son, who is opposite party no.3 and direction is also there that the said order will be effective from the date of filing of the said maintenance case i.e. from 19.09.2023 and the arrear accrued from the date of filing of that case to the date of impugned order will be paid by the petitioner within six months from the date of impugned order and the maintenance amount will be paid by the petitioner on or before 10 th day of every month. 3. Md. Nasim Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 has filed the said maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 27.03.2022 as per Muslim customs and rites and after marriage, opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial home where she was kept properly for three months only. She has also stated in the said maintenance case that even her father had given cash and other articles to the petitioner at the time of marriage. She has also stated in the petition that when she was pregnant, the petitioner started saying that he does not want the child right now and she should get her pregnancy aborted and when opposite party no.2 raised protest then the petitioner and her in- laws together started harassing her physically and mentally and beating her and they used to say that she will be kept in the house only if she will bring Rs.1,50,000/- further as dowry. She has also stated that even her ornament has been snatched by the petitioner. She has also stated that even her ornament has been snatched by the petitioner. He further submits that several allegations are there, however, the learned Court has allowed the said petition by way of directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife, who is opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to his legitimate minor son, who is opposite party no.3. He then submits that the petitioner is ready to keep the wife. He next submits that the amount in question is on higher side and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 4. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there of torturing opposite party no.2 and even dowry demand has been made and that is sufficient to leave the matrimonial home. He also draws attention of the Court to paragraph 14 of the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has refused to keep the opposite party no.2 along with him and in view of that, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to keep the wife with all dignity, is not correct. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this criminal revision petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. 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 happened to be the husband of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 is the legitimate minor child of the petitioner and opposite party no.2. The learned Court has been pleased to allow the said maintenance case and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to his married wife, who is opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to his legitimate minor son, who is opposite party no.3, which cannot be said in the present situation that the said amount is on higher side. 6. Further, the learned Court has given a cogent reason of arriving on such conclusion and he has elaborately discussed the documentary as well oral evidences laid by the petitioner and opposite party no.2 and has found that opposite party nos. 6. Further, the learned Court has given a cogent reason of arriving on such conclusion and he has elaborately discussed the documentary as well oral evidences laid by the petitioner and opposite party no.2 and has found that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be maintained by the petitioner, who happened to be the husband and father respectively of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The learned Court has elaborately discussed the evidences and, thereafter, has come to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 is having sufficient cause of living separately in view of torture made by the petitioner and his family members and in view of that, Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is fully attracted, so far as the case in hand is concerned. 7. The learned Court has rightly held that the deserted wife is required to be maintained under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and there cannot be any strait- jacket formula to allow the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not produced any document and the affidavit with regard to assets and liabilities and has only stated that the petitioner has got no personal source of income and 5 Katha land is in the name of his father and his father has shop in which he assists and he has also denied the earning of Rs.30,000/-. The learned Court in light of that, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner being the husband is liable to maintain the wife and child. It appears that the petitioner has also not disclosed about his statement bonafidely before the learned Court. If such a situation was there, the learned Court has rightly been pleased to allow the petition filed by opposite party no.2 and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3. 8. 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.