[2026:JHHC:10599] -1- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023 ---- Md. Samsul, aged about 35 years, son of Md. Rashid Ansari, resident of C/o Amrulla Ansari (Wasim), resident of Gaush Gali, Near Masjid, Abdul Karim Lane, Purani Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, PIN 834001 .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Noor Tara, aged about 32 years, wife of Md. Samsul, daughter of Rasul Bux, presently residing at Village-Jhirkey Basti, PO Kathara, PS Gomia, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 3.CCL, resident of Office of the Project Officer, Jarangdih Colliery, PO and PS Jarangdih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand …… ….. .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate For the C.C.L. :- Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate ---- 09/10.04.2026 This matter has been assigned to this Court by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice and that is how, this petition has been listed. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Maintenance Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 arising out of Original Maintenance Case (M.P) No.95 of 2015 by which the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the maintenance petition in Maintenance Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 arising out of Original Maintenance [2026:JHHC:10599] -2- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023 Case (MP) No.95 of 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage has been solemnized between the petitioner and the OP No.2 as per the muslim rites and customs and out of the said wed- lock, they were blessed with three daughters and one son. He next submits that the OP No.2 has filed a petition under section 125 Cr.PC which was registered as OMC No.95 of 2015. He further submits that a compromise has arrived between both the parties and the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the O.P.No.2 and on the basis of the said compromise, the said case under section 125 Cr.PC was disposed of. He next submits that in the meantime the OP No.2 has filed a complaint case before the learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat which was numbered as Complaint Case No.392 of 2015 on 2.7.2015 and accordingly under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the order of the learned trial court, the FIR was registered being Bokaro Thermal PS Case No.135 of 2015 for the offence under section 323, 498A, 497, 420, 406, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further by the judgment dated 26.6.2019 passed in connection with Bokaro Thermal PS Case No.135 of 2015, corresponding to GR Case No.1178 of 2015, T.R.No. 1106 of 2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bermo at Tenughat convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 323, 387, 494, 497, 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the said case. He next submits that being dissatisfied of the said judgment, the [2026:JHHC:10599] -3- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023 petitioner has preferred Cr.Appeal No.139 of 2019 before the before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat and the said Appeal was allowed and conviction of the petitioner was set aside. He next submits that the petitioner being a workman under the Establishment of M/s Central Coalfields Limited was dismissed from his service vide order dated 17/18.7.2020. He further submits that after acquittal the petitioner had made representation before the Management of M/s Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 10.5.2023, however, the period from 18.7.2020 to the date of joining was treated as not found to be counted and it was also instructed that the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages and consequential benefits. He next submits that the petitioner in the aforesaid background has filed application under section 127 CrPC for alteration and modification of the maintenance amount being MA Case No.13 of 2021, however, the learned court has dismissed the said alteration case without appreciating the facts and in view of that, the said order may kindly be set aside. According to him, the petitioner was convicted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the complainant/ OP No.2, and in view of that, subsequently, he has been acquitted and in view of that also, the order of the learned court dismissing the alteration case is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to [2026:JHHC:10599] -4- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023 pay Rs.Three lakhs to wife, the petitioner has paid Rs.One lakh to the wife. On these grounds, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.2, who is the wife, submits that the learned court has rightly passed the said order appreciating the entire facts as well as the materials on record, and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order. She also submits that in the compromise petition, the petitioner has undertaken to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife and further undertaking was there that the petitioner will pay the arrears after he will be reinstated in service. She also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has passed the order for payment of Rs.Three lacs to the wife and that order has also not been complied. She next submits that the petitioner has also solemnized second marriage in absence of any divorce. She then submits that two daughters are there and now they have attained the age of their marriage and they are marriageable. She next submits that only to deny the responsibility, even the petitioner has instigated the second wife to file maintenance case against the petitioner. 5. Learned court, while passing the order dated 29.8.2023 in MA Case No.13 of 2021 has elaborately dealt with the application and it has considered the witnesses examined in the said case as well as the opposite party. The learned court has also found [2026:JHHC:10599] -5- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023 that in the compromise arrived between the parties, the petitioner has given undertaking to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to Noor Tara and the petitioner was reinstated on 10.05.2023. The learned court further observed that the learned court has not altered the maintenance order as it was on the basis of the compromise. The learned court has also found that the second wife has also filed a maintenance case in which the learned court has ordered to deduct Rs.30,000/- from the salary of the petitioner to pay the wife. Prima- facie, it appears that in a well-planned manner the petitioner has got the maintenance case filed by the second wife as both are residing together, meaning thereby, that the said maintenance amount is being utilized by the petitioner and the second wife. The petitioner has solemnized the second marriage in absence of any divorce. The maintenance is not a charity, but, it is a legal right, aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle-akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards. The learned court has passed the said order on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner, as such, no case of interference is made out. Hence, this petition, being Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023, is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 10.04.2026 SI/,