2025:JHHC:30901 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.906 of 2025 Md. Ishak Alam, aged about 32 years, son of Md. Siddique, resident of Village Vikrampur, P.O. and P.S. Hanwara, District – Godda, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bibi Afsana, wife of Md. Ishak Alam and daughter of Md. Jalil, resident of Village Chengai, P.O. and P.S. – Basantrai, District – Godda, Jharkhand … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Ashna Khanam, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP ------ 2/07.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the Judgment dated 13.06.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 127 of 2023 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda, whereby the learned Court has allowed the petition preferred by the opposite party No.2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 from the date of filing the application i.e. 26.06.2023. The petitioner is further directed to pay the aforesaid monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 on or before 15th day of each succeeding month and the arrear amount will be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2 within one year in ten installments. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No.2 has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance stating therein that the marriage got solemnized with this 2025:JHHC:30901 2 petitioner on 06.05.2017 according to Muslim Rites and Customs and after marriage, she started her matrimonial life and out of wedlock, they blessed with a baby girl namely Ishra, who is about four years. She further submits that she has alleged that after birth of baby girl, she was being assaulted and abused and a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- was demanded as dowry and false allegation has been made against the petitioner of having illicit relation with another girl. She further submits that with these backgrounds, a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed and the learned Court has been pleased to allow the same and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, which is excessive. She further submits that petitioner is not having sufficient means to pay such amount and then submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has given the cogent reason to allow the petition and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that the learned Court has considered the parametria of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as well as discussed, the oral and documentary evidence to come to that finding. He then submits that the petitioner is the husband and he is bound to maintain his wife. According to him, the amount is very meager and in view of that, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the materials on record as well as the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Court in Paragraph 4 of 2025:JHHC:30901 3 the Judgment has framed four issues to decide the case. Issue No.3 was framed by the learned Court whether the opposite party has refused to live with the petitioner-husband without any sufficient reason or not and the learned Court has considered the evidence of PW-4, who is opposite party No.2, who has clearly stated in her evidence that the petitioner has demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her and the petitioner is also having illicit relationship with another lady namely Ajmeri Khatoon. PW-4 has also stated that the petitioner assaulted her when she protested the illicit act of her husband and the petitioner-husband has threatened to perform second marry. The evidence of PW-3 shows that opposite party No.2 has sufficient reason to reside separately. In view of that, the learned Court has rightly given the finding so far residing of the O.P. No.2 separately from the petitioner is concerned. 6. Issue No.4 was with regard to the quantum of maintenance. Learned Court has found that the petitioner herein is having sufficient means to maintain the opposite party No.2 and himself and the opposite party No.2 has to arrange food, clothes, medicine etc. The learned Court has also considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303 and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner being the husband is having the moral duty to maintain his wife and has directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-. In the present living condition, the amount appears to be meager and the challenge of that has been made by the husband. 2025:JHHC:30901 4 7. In view of above discussion, the Court finds that the learned Court has given the cogent reasons for awarding the maintenance amount to the opposite party No.2. There is no illegality in the impugned order 13.06.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 127 of 2023 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda. 8. As such, this revision petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 07.10.2025 R.Kumar