Jharkhand High Court
Md. Niyaz Ansari @ Niyaz Ansari vs Rubina Khatoon on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 860 of 2024
Md. Niyaz Ansari @ Niyaz Ansari, aged about 27 years, son of Abdul Samad
Ansari, Resident of Village Bario, P.O. Sarkardih, P.S. Govindpur, District
Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Rubina Khatoon, wife of Niyaz Ansari & daughter of Md. Shahabuddin
Ansari, Resident of Village Bario, P.O. Sarkardih, P.S. Govindpur, District
Dhanbad ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Nishanth Roy, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : None
---
st
02/1 August 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This revision application has been filed challenging the order dated
02.05.2024 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in
Original Maintenance Case No. 164 of 2023 passed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., wherein the learned court has directed payment of maintenance to the
extent of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party-wife from the date of
filing of the application i.e. from 02.03.2023 with a further direction to make
payment of arrears within a period of two months from the date of the order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order
has submitted that though the marriage was performed, but on account of
dispute, no vidai had taken place and consequently the marriage itself was not
consummated. She has further submitted that the date of marriage as per the
applicant was 15.02.2013 and after the marriage, the applicant instituted a case
for offence under Section 376 of the IPC along with other sections making
certain allegation of rape prior to marriage. She submits that the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence in the criminal case under Section 376 of IPC
and has filed an appeal before this Court and his sentence has been suspended
and he is on bail.
4. The learned counsel further submits that both the parties had filed their
respective affidavit in connection with their assets and liabilities in terms of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 but there was only oral evidences
and they denied each other contentions.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant had claimed that
the petitioner had a poultry farm and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and
that she was a jobless lady. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated that the
applicant was engaged in some embroidery work and had some source of
income and that he was a labour having monthly income to the extent of Rs.
7,000/- per months.
6. The learned counsel submits that considering the totality of the
evidences placed on record, the fixation of Rs. 7,000/- per month as
maintenance is excessive and therefore it calls for interference.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the marriage between
the parties is not in dispute. As per the case of the petitioner as argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage was solemnized on 15.02.2013
and on account of dispute, the applicant did not go to her matrimonial home
and subsequently, the applicant had filed a case under Section 376 of IPC
against the petitioner relating to incident prior to marriage.
8. The records of the case reveal that the applicant had examined two
witnesses, herself and her father and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he
was examined as witness and documentary evidence regarding the S.T. Case
No. 278 of 2013 and judgment passed in S.T. Case No. 278 of 2023 were also
produced. The applicant had supported her case and had also testified that the
husband had performed second marriage and during cross-examination, she
denied that she was in love with the petitioner and stated that she was raped by
him for which she has filed a case of rape and termination of pregnancy.
9. The learned court considered that the applicant had reasons to live
separately and also recorded that the applicant had no source of income.
10. This Court finds that the witnesses on both sides were examined and
cross-examined and no documentary evidence was placed on record with
regard to income of the parties. However, the applicant refused to have any
income and the petitioner admitted income to the extent of Rs. 7,000/- per
month. The learned court considered the source of income of the petitioner and
the standard of living and fixed a maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-. The learned court
has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Shamima Farooqui Shahid Khan reported in 2015 (3) BBCJ (SC) 157 that
the wife is entitled to receive maintenance in terms of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in
order to maintain her dignity and she could not be compelled to become a
destitute or a beggar. The learned court also considered that if the husband is
healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the
legal obligation to support his wife.
11. This Court is of the considered view that the amount of maintenance so
fixed is a meagre amount and the learned court has referred to the evidences on
record while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances this court finds no
perversity, illegality or material irregularity calling for interference in the
impugned order and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of
maintenance in revisional jurisdiction.
13. Accordingly, this revision application is hereby dismissed.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through
'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
