Nasim Ansari @ Md. Nasim Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1132 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Nasim Ansari @ Md. Nasim Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                  2025:JHHC:20570



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Revision No. 1386 of 2022

Nasim Ansari @ Md. Nasim Ansari, S/o Basir Ansari, R/o Village-Huchlu,
P.O. Bari, P.S.-Chandwa, District-Latehar (Jharkhand)
                                                  .....  .... Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Asifa Khatoon, W/o Nasim Ansari, D/o Abdul Wahab, R/o Village-Huchlu,
   P.O. Bari, P.S.-Chandwa, District-Latehar (Jharkhand)
                                                  ...      ....   Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner           : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
For the State                : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
For the O.P. No. 2           : M/s Shadab Eqbal & A.K. Sinha, Advocates
                             ------

Order No. 03 / Dated : 25.07.2025.

1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Original Maintenance Case No. 54/2021, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the maintenance, awarded, is excessive, as the petitioner is a compounder having income of Rs.100 to 150/- per day.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 submits that the petitioner is a doctor and he earns Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it is difficult to accept the claim of the petitioner that he earned Rs 100-150 per day. It has come in evidence that the petitioner was unregistered medical practitioner at the local level. OPW-2 has admitted that he was working as a compounder and had also a medicine shop in his house. In this view of matter, the assessment of income and order of maintenance cannot in any way be said to be excessive. I do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order.

This criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -