[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Taz Hasan @ Taj Hasan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:30695]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
