Jharkhand High Court
Riyazuddin Ansari vs Safika Parbeen on 17 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:28444 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2024
Riyazuddin Ansari, aged about 26 years, son of Jiyaur Rahman, resident of
village -Tantipara, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand
...... ... Petitioner
Versus
Safika Parbeen, aged about 22 years, wife of Riyazuddin Ansari, resident of
Tantipara (Harinadanga Bazar), P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand
at present Namupara, Pakur (Town), P.O. and P.S. Pakur (town) District-
Pakur, Jharkhand, India ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, A.C. to Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
For the O.P. :
05/ 17.09.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside order dated
16.02.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in
Original Maintenance Case No. 268/2023 whereby the application filed under
section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the opposite party, has been allowed and the
petitioner was directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per
month to the wife namely, Safika Parbeen who is sole opposite party herein.
Further direction has been made to pay the maintenance amount regularly
by the 7th day of every succeeding months according to English Calendar
failing which the opposite party would be entitled to receive the same
through the process of law and further direction is made to pay the
maintenance amount directly in the bank account of his wife.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 125 Cr.P.C
petition has been filed saying that petitioner and opposite party were in
relationship about 5-6 months ago and later on Nikah was solemnized with
the petitioner with the petitioner in presence of witnesses as per Muslim
Sariyat Law on 27.09.2023 and Notary public drafted the marriage document
as evidence. However the opposite party was not taken to the house of the
( 2025:JHHC:28444 )
petitioner and he made promise to the O.P that after talking to his parents,
he will take the O.P. to his house. The O.P stayed at her father's house and
waited for her husband till 01.10.2023, but the Petitioner did not come to
take her as promised stipulated date. When O.P talked over phone with the
petitioner his father and uncle have demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, one
motorcycle and all the domestic articles and it has been stated when it shall
be complied, then he will brought her to his house. Thereafter, the petitioner
switch off his mobile. The O.P along with her parents went to the house of
petitioner on 06.10.2023 wherein the father of petitioner not accepted the
O.P unless their demand will not fulfill. Thereafter the O.P filed a complaint
about the occurrence before Pakur (Mahila) P.S and it was registered as
Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 19/2023. When the petitioner came to know
about the lodging of FIR against him, he came to the father's house of O.P
on 11.11.2023 and abused her and also slapped her. She was also threatened
of the dire consequences. In this background, he submits that the said
petition has been filed and the learned court allowed the said petition by
impugned order dated 16.02.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage is not
proved inspite of that the learned court has passed the said order in view of
that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. He further submits that
even the assets and liability have not been properly considered by the
learned court. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may
kindly be set side.
5. Learned Court has appreciated the documents and the oral
evidence. The opposite party has adduced documentary evidence to prove
her case. Exhibit-X was combined photograph of the petitioner and O.P. in
( 2025:JHHC:28444 )
which both are sitting together. Exhibit X/1 are the What's App Chat in
between the petitioner and O.P and from the Chats, it was found by the
learned court that the word like wife, Jan etc. have been indicated and
several chats have been made. Exhibit-X/2 are the call details and the
learned court has found that for a long time several conversation has been
made. Exhibit X/3 was marriage certificate issued on Non-judicial stamp of
Rs. 20/- and in the said Notary the combined photograph of the petitioner
and O.P. having pasted which was attested by the Notary Public and three
witnesses put their signature. In the said marriage certificate Den Mehar of
Rs. 51,000/- was fixed out of which Rs. 1,000/- was paid by the petitioner to
the O.P. The petitioner has sworn before the Notary Public and filed an
affidavit in which he put his signature before the Notary Public. The learned
court has found that although the those documents have not been issued
by the authorized persons or competent authority as per the Special Marriage
Act, 1954 but those documents indicate that the O.P.-petitioner herein
voluntarily performed his marriage with the O.P. and put his signature before
the Notary Public on his affidavit and marriage certificate and the signature
of the petitioner has not been denied by the petitioner.
6. The spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been further appreciated by
the learned Court. The learned court has taken into consideration the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Chaturbhuj Vs.
Sita Bai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 317, " Ramesh Chander Kaushal
Vs. Veena Kaushal". In this background the learned court has found that
proof of marriage is there and in view of that the said order has been
passed.
7. If such facts are there, the petitioner is required to take a final
( 2025:JHHC:28444 )
decision on the marriage by way of filing appropriate petition before the
competent court of civil jurisdiction. So far section 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, if
prima facie case is made out that is required to be allowed. The O.P. stated
before the learned court that petitioner earns Rs. 2,000/- per day from his
business and further petitioner has an agricultural land about 10 bighas at
Mouza-Pakur and Piyadapur and he earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from the
cultivation of land. She has also stated that the petitioner has also rented
his three houses on rent to the tailor master and earns Rs, 9,000/- per
month from rent and in this background, the O.P has claimed maintenance of
Rs. 30,000/- per month for herself. Two of the P.Ws have stated that the
petitioner is owner of a whole sale shop of toys at Tantipara, Pakur and earns
Rs. 2,000/- per day from his business.
8. In this background the learned court has come to the finding
that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month and directed
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party as
maintenance
9. In view of above discussions and the materials on record which
has been taken into consideration by the learned court, the Court finds that
there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands dismissed.
Dt.17.09.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
satyarthi-
