[2025:JHHC:30695] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 823 of 2025 Taz Hasan @ Taj Hasan, aged about 28 years, son of Ibnullah Ansari, resident of village- Kanchanpur, P.O. and P.S. Ranka, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Rubi Khatoon, aged about 25 years, wife of Taz Hassan, daughter of Sher Alam, resident of village- Kanchanpur, P.O. and P.S. Ranka, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand, presently residing at Jobariaya, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa, District- Garhwa. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 01.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 13.06.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, in Original Maintenance Case No. 50 of 2024, whereby, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has been pleased to allow the application filed by the O.P. No. 2 under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the minor child, who has born out of the wedlock. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 was solemnized on 16.05.2022 as per Muslim rites and customs and at the time of marriage, it has been stated that certain gifts have been provided. He [2025:JHHC:30695] -2- next submits that the learned court has passed the order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 1500/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 and the minor child respectively. He then submits that the O.P. No. 2 has filed O.S. No. 118 of 2022 for dissolution of marriage and that matter was sent for mediation and the mediation has been succeeded and thereafter O.P. No. 2 was not appearing before the learned court and in view of that the learned court has been pleased to dispose of the said O.S. No. 118 of 2022 by the order dated 29.03.2023. He also submits that in view of disposal of the said case on the point of mediation, the petitioner is not entitled to provide the maintenance to the O.P. No. 2 and her minor child in light of the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that the total maintenance amount is Rs. 7500/-, which is on the higher side. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the O.S. No. 118 of 2022 was disposed of only on the ground of mediation, however, it was in absence of O.P. No. 2, in view of that the right of the O.P. No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be violated. On this ground, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. In view of the above and considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is an admitted position that the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 was taken place on 16.05.2022 as per Muslim rites and customs. The reason of leaving the matrimonial house is said to be the torture and not establishing the relationship by the petitioner with the O.P. No. 2 and the learned court has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter [2025:JHHC:30695] -3- has been pleased to pass the said order. 6. O.P. No. 2 has been examined as A.W-1 and she has stated before the learned court that the marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2022 and how the dispute has taken place that has also been narrated by her. The petitioner herein used to threat that he will solemnize the second marriage. She has further deposed that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage with one Husna Bano of village Diharia, P.S. Rehla on 21.01.2024 and the petitioner is living with her. She has also stated that petitioner owns an electronic shop and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month and also he is having six acres of agriculture land, from which, he also earns Rs. 30,000/- per month, as such, the total income of the petitioner is said to be Rs. 50,000/- per month. On these backgrounds, the O.P. No. 2 claimed the maintenance. 7. A.W.-2 has also supported the case of the O.P. No. 2 who happened to be the mother of O.P. No. 2. A.W.-3 is the father, who also supported the case of the O.P. No. 2. A.W.-4 has also reiterated the same. 8. The petitioner herein was examined as O.P.W.-1 and has stated that his wife herself left the matrimonial house and she has not returned. He has also stated about the mediation, wherein it has been settled that the petitioner will take back the O.P. No. 2 to her in-laws house. O.P.W. No. 2 was the father of the petitioner and O.P.W.-3 was the mother of the petitioner and O.P.W.-4 is the elder sister of the petitioner and in their depositions, they have fully supported the case of the petitioner. 9. The learned court, in view of the statements and evidences on the record has found that the marriage was admitted and the same was taken place on 16.05.2022 as per Muslim rites and customs and she [2025:JHHC:30695] -4- was tortured in the matrimonial house for demand of dowry and thereafter she was compelled to left the matrimonial house. On the basis of compromise, the O.S. No. 118 of 2022 was disposed of. The bidai was fixed for 08.04.2022, however, when the petitioner herein has gone to take her wife from his matrimonial house, the petitioner herein was assaulted by the parental family of the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 did not return. 10. All the witnesses have been examined on behalf of O.P. No. 2 including the O.P. no. 2 and they have stated about the torture in the matrimonial house and about the demand of dowry and the O.S. No. 118 of 2022 was disposed of in absence of O.P. No. 2 only on the ground that the intention of settlement was there. She was not present before the learned court and only on the basis of intention of settlement, the learned court was required to dispose of the same in accordance with law and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the Higher Court, in that view of the matter, only because that order, the right of the petitioner in light of the provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken away. 11. It has also come in the record that the petitioner has already solemnized second marriage, in view of that sufficient cause is there of not living the O.P. No. 2 along with petitioner. On the point of quantum, the learned court has considered the income of the petitioner as the petitioner owns an electronic shop and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month and also he is having six acres of agriculture land, from which, he also earns Rs. 30,000/- per month, as such, the total income of the petitioner is said to be Rs. 50,000/- per month, however, no document to that effect has been brought on record and the learned court has found that admittedly the family of petitioner had spent Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. [2025:JHHC:30695] -5- 12,00,000/- for going to Haj and also Rs. 10,00,000/- has been spent on construction of house. The learned court has also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 and after that the learned court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 1500/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 and the minor child respectively, total comes to Rs. 7500/- per month. 12. In light of the above discussions by the learned court, the court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-01.12.2025 Amitesh/- Uploaded on 02.12.2025