Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16784 (JHR)

MD SAMSHAD v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./123/2026 · 2026-06-15

Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:17218 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2026 Md. Shamshad, son of Md. Rauf, resident of village: Dalwa More Balhara, PO: Taranakho, PS: Danwar, District: Giridih (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raushan Aara, wife of Md. Shamshad, D/o Md. Mister Ali, resident of village-Dalwa More Balhara, PO: Taranakho, PS: Danwar, District: Giridih at present resident of village: Nawadih, PS: Markacho, PO: Nawadih and District : Koderma. … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --- 02/15.06.2026 Heard Mr. Diwakar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. This application is directed against the order dated 19.09.2025, passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 62 of 2024, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma, whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep the opposite party no.2 with him with full dignity and honour. It has further been submitted that the petitioner drives a Toto and earns an amount of Rs.5,000/- - Rs.6,000/- per month and he has to look after his parents. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 has given sufficient reasons to certify the fact that the petitioner does not maintain her and consequently, the learned Court-below has ordered an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2. The amount which has been arrived at is a meagre amount and is based on the assessment of the income of the petitioner. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 62 of 2024 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma and consequently, this application stands dismissed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) 15.06.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 17.06.2026