Jharkhand High Court
Rahbar Ali @ Md. Rahber Ali vs Nilofer Perween W/O - Rahbar Ali D/O - Md. ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:31505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.656 of 2024
Rahbar Ali @ Md. Rahber Ali, aged about 45, S/o Late Haider Ali, Resident
of L.N. Singh Road, Momin tola, P.O.- Nathnagar, P.S.- Nathnagar,
District-Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Nilofer Perween W/O - Rahbar Ali D/O - Md. Mahmood Alam,
2. Atif Ali, aged about 07 months represented through her mother
(opposite party no.1) as legal guardian Both Resident of Bengali Tola
P.S - Sahibganj (Town) District Sahibganj (Jharkhand)
... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate.
------
5/13.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner.
2. This Cr. Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the
Judgment dated 09/5/2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.
118 of 2022, pursuant to the application filed under section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code by the Opposite Party No.2 and by the said
judgment, learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sahibganj has been
pleased to allow the said application and directed the petitioner to pay
of Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party No.1 and further directed
to pay Rs. 3000/- per months to his legitimate minor son being opposite
party No.2, w.e.f. dated 13.06.2022 and further directed to payment of
maintenance amount will be paid to the opposite parties by the
petitioner on or before 10th day of the months and further directed to
pay arrear accrued from the date of filing of this case to the date of
judgment shall be paid by the petitioner within six months from the
date of order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of
Mohammadan Law being Matrimonial Case No.207 of 2022 before the
2025:JHHC:31505
Family Court, Bhagalpur. He further submits that in the meantime, the
Maintenance Case being 118 of 2022 was filed by the wife under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage was
solemnized on 02.12.2020 according to custom and rituals of Muslims
and after marriage, both couple started living together and after six
months of her marriage, the petitioner and his relatives started
subjecting the applicant to cruelty and due to non-fulfillment of demand
of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, she was driven out from her matrimonial
home on 10.05.2022. It is further alleged that opposite Party No.1 gave
birth of a male child, who is opposite party No.2. He then submits that
it is further alleged that the petitioner is a person of sufficient means
and he earns Rs.60,000/- from the business of silk clothes and dull cloth
manufacture and sell and he also earn Rs.20,000/- per month from the
rent of shop of his factory. In light of these facts, opposite party No.1
prayed to direct the petitioner for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per
month for her maintenance and Rs.3,000/- for maintenance of her
minor son. He further submits that the learned Court has been pleased
to allow the said application. Learned counsel further submits that
petitioner is not able to pay the said amount, as it is in higher side. In
view of that, he lastly submits that this application may kindly be
allowed.
4. The Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that the
learned court in deciding the same has appreciated oral and
documentary evidence and has found that AW-1, who is the wife has
reiterated the fact in her statement that her husband earns earn
Rs.60,000/- from the business of silk clothes and dull cloth manufacture
2025:JHHC:31505
and sell and he also earns Rs.20,000/- per month from the rent of shop
of his house and workshop. AW-2 has stated in examination-in-chief
that he has seen the workshop of his son-in-law, in which 5 to 6 persons
were working, although he has not seen the license of workshop. PW-3
has also deposed in para-16 that he has seen the workshop of petitioner,
in which 15-20 workers were working there. Petitioner herein has
accepted that he has a small grocery shop. AW-3 has reiterated the same
thing. The question was put to OPW-1 Alam Ansari regarding the
business of the petitioner and in the cross-examination, he has accepted
in para-11 that the Rahbar has a small cloth shop and he has no
knowledge as to whether he has his house for conducting power-loom
or not. He has further deposed that he has no knowledge as to what has
been written in the affidavit. OPW-2 has almost reiterated the same
facts in his cross-examination.
5. The learned Court has considered all the aspects elaborately and
considering that the petitioner has small shop in the market, the entire
income is not disclosed in the entire testimony and the learned and also
considered the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SC 324
and considering all the aspect, the learned Court has been pleased to
direct the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to his wife and
Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor son. In view of the above, it is found
that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
6. As such, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
13.10.2025
R.Kumar
