2025:JHHC:26743 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 843 of 2024 …. Md. Izhar aged about 52 years( wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as 46 years), Son of Late Kutubuddin, resident of Mohalla Railpaar, Jahangiri, PO- Asansol, PS- Asansol North, District- West Burdman, West Bengal …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kaaynat Tabassum, aged about 32 years, wife of Md. Izhar and daughter of Late Mobin Ansari 3. Md. Aabeesh Raja, aged about 07 years, son of Md. Izhar. Sl. No. 3 is represented by his natural guardian/mother i.e. opposite party no. 2 Kaaynat Tabassum. Both are resident of Mohalla Railpaar, Jahangiri, PO- Asansol, PS- Asansol North, District- West Burdman, West Bengal Presently residing at Mohalla Lakhna, PO and PS-Madhupur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand +…… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, Spl.P.P. For the O. P. No. 2 : None. …… C.A.V. Judgment Pronounced on 29/08/2025 This Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar Camp Court at Madhupur in Original Maintenance No. 190 of 2022 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed and direction has been given to the husband- petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2- wife namely Kaaynat 2025:JHHC:26743 2 Tabassum and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3- son namely Md. Aabeesh Raja from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 06.07.2022. 2. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 having filed maintenance suit being Original Maintenance Case No. 190 of 2022 before the Court of Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., on 06.07.2022, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the petitioner. It is stated that the opposite party no.2 was married with the present petitioner on 15.03.2017 as per Muslim Rites and Customs after getting divorce from her earlier husband namely Irshad Ansari son of Md. Alauddin Ansari, resident of village Dandidih, P.S. Muffasil, District Giridih on 28.01.2015 and as per divorce agreement, the opposite party no.2 was to maintain the opposite party no.3 even if she solemnized marriage with another person. It is stated that after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house along with her son, but thereafter they were deserted by the present petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner earns handsome money of Rs. 2 Lakhs yearly from agriculture, Rs. 15,000/- per month from the auto, he runs. It is further stated that her husband i.e. the petitioner has monthly earning of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the decoration business, but he is not paying any amount for her maintenance and she had no other source of income for maintenance, hence the present application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. 3. The petitioner has appeared and filed his show cause in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 02.01.2023, denying all the contentions of the opposite party no.2 and also claimed that the opposite party no. 2 should take step for restitution of her conjugal rights. 2025:JHHC:26743 3 The petitioner in his show has further stated that the petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the O. P. No. 2 is not maintainable as the petitioner has not deserted the opposite party no. 2. He has also stated that his wife i.e O. P. No. 2 is a Lady Tailor and is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month whereas the petitioner i.e the husband is a Labourer and doing labour work. The petitioner has no income of Rs. 2.00 Lakh from cultivation and he runs only Auto and the petitioner has got no bank balance. The petitioner is still ready to keep his wife and children. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. However, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, although notice was issued upon the opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 27.01.2025 and Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the O. P. No. 2. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts and as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the Learned Court below has passed the Impugned order without considering the entire facts and also without properly assessing the income of the petitioner. It is submitted that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that learned Court below has failed to consider that the petitioner is always ready and willing to keep his wife and ready to restore their conjugal life. It is submitted that learned Court below failed to consider that the opposite party no. 3 is not born from their wedlock rather he was born from the 2025:JHHC:26743 4 wedlock of the earlier husband of opposite party no.2. It is submitted that learned Court below failed to appreciate that in view of the admitted facts, the opposite party no.3 is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the petitioner. It is submitted that learned Court below has failed to consider the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the present petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to any maintenance as she has voluntarily left her matrimonial house without any cause and she has made false allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that the evidence of the witnesses produced by the opposite party are contradictory to each other. It is submitted that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Rajnesh Vrs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. It is submitted that the quantum of maintenance is exorbitantly high and excessive and beyond the capacity of the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 190 of 2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law and may be set aside in the interest of justice. Hence this Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2024 may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to give maintenance to his wife and children i.e. the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3 and no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that witnesses have supported the case of the O. P. No. 2 and the O. P. No. 3 case and the petitioner was given several 2025:JHHC:26743 5 opportunities and as such, the criminal revision application may be dismissed. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides. 8. It transpires that two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the wife-opposite party no. 2, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 is Mudasir Ansari (brother of the O. P. No. 2) and (ii) P.W.-2 is Kaaynat Tabassum (i.e. opposite party no. 2) 9 However, no document has been marked as an Exhibit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 10. The petitioner got examined three witnesses in support of his case as follows:- (i) OPW-1 is Md. Rijwan i.e. step son of O. P. N o. 2 an own son of the petitioner, (ii) OPW-2 is Sima (relative) and (iii) OPW-3 is Md. Izhar (i.e. the petitioner), 11. However, the petitioner got proved the following as the Exhibits:- (a) Ext-A is the certified copy of the order sheet of Mat. Suit No. 32 of 2021 filed before the Court of Smt. Bishakha Chaudhury, Civil Judge, Junior Division Additional Court, Asansol from 16.08.2021 to 22.11.2021 along with copy of plaint of Mat. Suit No. 32 of 2021. (b) Ext.-B is certified copy of the petition filed on 16.08.2021 by the petitioner i.e. Mat. Suit No. 32 of 2021. 12. Thereafter, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar Camp Court at Madhupur has passed the impugned order and hence, the instance Criminal Revision Application has been filed. 2025:JHHC:26743 6 13. It appears that P. W. No. 2, Kaynat Tabassum (i.e. O. P . No. 2) has stated during her examination-in-chief that she was married with Md. Izhar i.e. the present opposite party on 15.03.2017 as per Muslim customs and then she went her Sasural and remained there properly for one year. Thereafter, her husband and his family members started assaulting her for non- fulfilment of their demand of dowry. She stated that she has no father and as such demand of dowry could not be fulfilled. She has further stated that her husband at last ousted her from his house after assaulting her on 01.05.2020 and since then, she is residing with her son at the house of her mother. She further stated in paragraph no. 4 of her evidence that she has a son from her ex-husband who had divorced her. At the same time, she has further stated in paragraph no. 5 of her evidence that the present opposite party had promised her to maintain and to educate her son born earlier prior to her marriage with him. 14. It further appears from the cross -examination of this witness that the opposite party has not denied his marriage with the petitioner no. 1 i. e. P. W. - 2 and has also not controverted the factum of his promise to maintain and to educate the petitioner no. 2 i. e. the minor son of the petitioner no. 1 and her ex-husband through any of the suggestion given to this witness being the petitioner no. 1. 15. It further appears that P. W. No. 1 namely Md. Mudashir Ansari, being brother of the petitioner no. 1, has also stated almost the same things as stated in the evidence of P. W. No. 1 by corroborating the same. It further appears from the contents of the cross-examination of this witness too that the marriage of petitioner with the opposite party no. 2 has been admitted. 2025:JHHC:26743 7 16. It further appears that the petitioner- Md Izhar was examined as O. P. W. No. 3 [i.e. the opposite party (in OMC No.- 190/2022)] himself and he also admitted his marriage with the O. P. No. 2 namely Kayanat Tabasum in paragraph no. 1 of his evidence stating that he was married with the O.P. No.- 2 on 15.03.2017 and it is his second marriage. He further stated that first marriage of Kayanat i. e. the O.P. No.- 2 had taken place at Giridih and she has two children from that wedlock. He has further stated that his marriage was solemnized thereafter with her and the applicant no. 1 i.e. O. P. No. 2 had come to his home after her marriage with him and he had lived with her for a period of 2-2½ years. He further stated that the brother of Kayanat came on 11.07.2021 and took away Kayanat with him saying that he is taking away her for a period of 10 to 15 days. However, after few days, he and other people of his house had gone to bring back his wife on 11.08.2021, but the brother and the mother of the petitioner abused them and had made scuffles and not allowed him to enter into the house. He further stated that his wife (i.e. the O. P. No. 2) had declined to return back with him, but he has nowhere stated in his evidence as to why the brother of the O.P.No. 2, mother of the O.P.No.2 and the O.P.No. 2 herself had behaved in that way with him. This witness being the opposite party himself has concealed the reason behind non-living of the O. P. No. 2 with him. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the applicant no. 1 (i.e. the O. P. No. 2) herself had moved away to her Naihar without any rhyme and reason. 17. So far as the submission on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner no. 2 is not the son of the opposite party and as such the opposite party is not liable to maintain the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the opposite party himself as P. W. No. 3 has 2025:JHHC:26743 8 stated in paragraph no. 7 of his cross-examination that it was agreed between him and Kayanat (i. e. the O.P.No.2-wife) at the time of his Nikah with her that the children born out of her previous wedlock shall also remain with him, meaning thereby that the opposite party had solemnized his marriage with the petitioner knowing that she has children from her ex-husband and had also agreed at the time of his Nikah with the O. P. No. 2 to maintain and educate them by keeping them with him. Thus the petitioner cannot go back from that stand. 18. It further appears that O. P. W. No. 1 namely Md. Rijwan and O. P. W. - 2 namely Sima have also admitted in their respective evidence that the opposite party no. 2 was married with the petitioner and the O. P. No. 3 being son of the O. P. No. 2 and her ex-husband was also living with the petitioner. 19. It further appears that the opposite party had produced certified copies of order sheet of Matrimonial Suit No. 32/2021 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Additional Court, Asansol and the petition thereof as Exhibit-A & Exhibit-B respectively. These are in respect of a suit between the opposite party no. 2 and petitioner in respect of restitution of their conjugal rights, but no order/ judgment of the concerned learned court in respect of restitution of the conjugal rights of the opposite party no. 2 with the petitioner has been adduced into evidence. 20. It is further evident that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar, Camp Court at Madhupur has allowed only of meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively to the wife (i.e. the O. P. No. 2) and her son (i.e. the O. P. No. 3) respectively and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month total 2025:JHHC:26743 9 Rs. 3,000/- per month is too low to maintain themselves. 21. It further appears from perusal of the evidence of the witnesses examined as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 that their evidences are intact on the point of the marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party no. 2 and on the point of neglect by the petitioner with the Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of their maintenance. 22. It is further evident from the evidence of the O. P. No. 2 (i.e. the wife) that she has no source of income and even the petitioner himself has also not proved any source of income of the OPW-2 through any cogent evidence. 23. It has been held in the case of Abhilasha Versus Parkash and Ors. reported in (2021) 13 SCC 99, at para 27 to 31, which are as follows:- “Para-27:- Muslim Law also recognises the obligation of father to maintain his daughters until they are married. Referring to Mulla’s Principle of Mohammedan Law, this Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Santra (Smt.), (2000) 5 SCC 182 in paragraph 40 held: (SCC p. 196) “40. Similarly, under the Mohammedan Law, a father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married. [See: Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law (19th Edn.) page 300]” Para-28:- Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. Para-29:- Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 cast a statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his daughter who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. As noted above, Hindu Law prior to enactment of Act, 1956 always obliged a Hindu to maintain unmarried daughter, who is unable to maintain herself. The obligation, which is cast on the father to maintain his unmarried daughter, can be enforced by her against her father, if she is unable to maintain herself by enforcing her right under Section 20. 2025:JHHC:26743 10 Para-30:- We may also notice another judgment of this Court in Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233, which was a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A Muslim wife with her two daughters and a son filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the maintenance to the wife and children from her husband. The husband after divorcing the wife filed application in the trial court seeking modification of the order in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of the three minor children. The husband challenged the order by means of revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The High Court accepted the claim of husband and relying on provision of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1986 held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her previous husband for her children only for a period of two years from the date of birth of the child concerned. The High Court held that minor children were not entitled for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. A special leave to appeal was filed questioning the judgment. This Court dealing with Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Act, 1986 held that effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. This Court held that there is no conflict between the two provisions. Para-31:- This Court noticed the provisions of Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by this Court in paragraph 7 of the above judgment: (Noor Saba Khatoon Case, SCC pp. 238-39) “7. ...Under Section 125, CrPC the maintenance of the children is obligatory on the father (irrespective of his religion) and as long as he is in a position to do so and the children have no independent means of their own, it remains his absolute obligation to provide for them. Insofar as children born of Muslim parents are concerned there is nothing in Section 125 CrPC which exempts a Muslim father from his obligation to maintain the children. These provisions are not affected by Clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act and indeed it would be unreasonable, unfair, inequitable and even preposterous to deny the benefit of Section 125 CrPC to the children only on the ground that they are born of Muslim parents. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. We do not find manifestation of any such intention in the 1986 Act to take away the independent rights of the children to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where they are minor and are unable 2025:JHHC:26743 11 to maintain themselves. A Muslim father's obligation, like that of a Hindu father, to maintain his minor children as contained in Section 125 CrPC is absolute and is not at all affected by Section 3 (1)(b) of the 1986 Act.” (emphasis in original) 24. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para-56, 59, 60 and 61 which are as follows:- “Para-56:-Similarly, in Tanushree & Ors. v A.S.Moorthy, the Delhi High Court was considering a case where the Magistrate’s Court had sine die adjourned the proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that parallel proceedings for maintenance under the D.V. Act were pending. In an appeal filed by the wife before the High Court, it was held that a reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act indicates that while considering an application u/S. 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court would take into account an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force. The mere fact that two proceedings were initiated by a party, would not imply that one would have to be adjourned sine die. There is a distinction in the scope and power exercised by the Magistrate under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and the D.V. Act. With respect to the overlap in both statutes, the Court held : (SCC Online Del para 5) “5. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act further shows that the two proceedings are independent of each other and have different scope, though there is an overlap. Insofar as the overlap is concerned, law has catered for that eventuality and laid down that at the time of consideration of an application for grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken into account.” (emphasis supplied) Para-59:- In Sudeep Chaudhary v Radha Chaudhary25 the Supreme Court directed adjustment in a case where the wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and under HMA. In the Section 125 proceedings, she had obtained an order of maintenance. Subsequently, in proceedings under the HMA, the 2025:JHHC:26743 12 wife sought alimony. Since the husband failed to pay maintenance awarded, the wife initiated recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be adjusted against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings under HMA, and was not to be given over and above the same. Directions on overlapping jurisdictions Para-60:- It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. Para-61:- To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.” 25. Thus, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 (son of opposite party no. 2) before the Family Court in the proceeding filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. from the date 2025:JHHC:26743 13 of filing of the petition dated 06.07.2022. 26. Thus, the order dated 10.06.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 190 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar, Camp Court at Madhupur by which learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar, Camp Court at Madhupur has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance, is a well discussed and reasoned order and speaking one and as such, no interference is required from this Court and the hence the order dated 10.06.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 190 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar, Camp Court at Madhupur is upheld. 27. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2024 is, hereby, dismissed, however, the arrear of maintenance amount due to the wife i.e. O. P. No. 2 and son i.e. O. P. No. 3 may be recovered by the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3 and the learned Court below is directed to take all possible coercive necessary steps in accordance with law for payment of maintenance amount due to the O. P. No. 2 and O. P. No. 3. 28. Before parting with this order, it will be useful to mention herein that Department of Women, Child and Welfare has floated Maiya Samman Yojana for grant of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the Woman between the age of 18 to 50 years of age and Government has claimed that Forty Five (45) Lakh beneficiaries have been included. 29. The Department of Family Welfare has also formulated various schemes such as grant of several Health Issues:- (i) Ayushman Bharat Jan Arogya Yogna of Five Lakh Rupees per family and also senior citizen, (ii) Ayushman Vay Vandana of Five Lakh per family per year, 2025:JHHC:26743 14 (iii) Mukhya Mantri Abua Swasthya Suraksha Yojna of Fifteen Lakh per family per year, (iv) Mukhya Mantri Gambhir Bimari Upchar Yojana for treatment above five lakh up to Twenty (20) Lakh for 21 defined diseases. 30. Therefore, it will be desirable that O. P. No. 2 shall also be extended the benefit of Maiya Samman Yojana in the State of Jharkhand, if not being paid to her till date and the State Authorities particularly the Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to grant benefit of Maiya Samman Yojana. The O. P. No. 2 should approach the Competent Authority to include her name in the said Maiya Samman Yojana Scheme and the Competent Authority of the concerned District i.e. Deoghar District is also directed to include the name of the O. P. No. 2 for availing the benefits of Maiya Samman Yojana. 31. The O. P. No. 2, Kaaynat Tabassum and her son will be entitled to the benefits of Health Schemes prevalent in the State of Jharkhand. 32. Thus, Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2024 is hereby dismissed with the observations and directions mentioned above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/ N.A. F. R.