[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Md. Samsul vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2026:JHHC:10599]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023
----
Md. Samsul, aged about 35 years, son of Md. Rashid Ansari,
resident of C/o Amrulla Ansari (Wasim), resident of Gaush Gali,
Near Masjid, Abdul Karim Lane, Purani Ranchi, PO GPO, PS
Kotwali, District Ranchi, PIN 834001 .... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Noor Tara, aged about 32 years, wife of Md. Samsul,
daughter of Rasul Bux, presently residing at Village-Jhirkey
Basti, PO Kathara, PS Gomia, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
3.CCL, resident of Office of the Project Officer, Jarangdih
Colliery, PO and PS Jarangdih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
...... ..... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate
For the C.C.L. :- Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate
----
09/10.04.2026 This matter has been assigned to this Court by the
Hon'ble The Chief Justice and that is how, this petition has been
listed.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Maintenance
Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 arising out of Original Maintenance
Case (M.P) No.95 of 2015 by which the learned court has been
pleased to dismiss the maintenance petition in Maintenance
Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 arising out of Original Maintenance
-1- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:10599]
Case (MP) No.95 of 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
marriage has been solemnized between the petitioner and the OP
No.2 as per the muslim rites and customs and out of the said wed-
lock, they were blessed with three daughters and one son. He next
submits that the OP No.2 has filed a petition under section 125
Cr.PC which was registered as OMC No.95 of 2015. He further
submits that a compromise has arrived between both the parties
and the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the
O.P.No.2 and on the basis of the said compromise, the said case
under section 125 Cr.PC was disposed of. He next submits that in
the meantime the OP No.2 has filed a complaint case before the
learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat which was numbered as
Complaint Case No.392 of 2015 on 2.7.2015 and accordingly under
the provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the order of the
learned trial court, the FIR was registered being Bokaro Thermal PS
Case No.135 of 2015 for the offence under section 323, 498A, 497,
420, 406, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further by the judgment
dated 26.6.2019 passed in connection with Bokaro Thermal PS Case
No.135 of 2015, corresponding to GR Case No.1178 of 2015, T.R.No.
1106 of 2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bermo at
Tenughat convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 323,
387, 494, 497, 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the said case. He
next submits that being dissatisfied of the said judgment, the
-2- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:10599]
petitioner has preferred Cr.Appeal No.139 of 2019 before the before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat and the
said Appeal was allowed and conviction of the petitioner was set
aside. He next submits that the petitioner being a workman under
the Establishment of M/s Central Coalfields Limited was dismissed
from his service vide order dated 17/18.7.2020. He further submits
that after acquittal the petitioner had made representation before
the Management of M/s Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner
was reinstated in service by order dated 10.5.2023, however, the
period from 18.7.2020 to the date of joining was treated as not
found to be counted and it was also instructed that the petitioner
will not be entitled for any back wages and consequential benefits.
He next submits that the petitioner in the aforesaid background has
filed application under section 127 CrPC for alteration and
modification of the maintenance amount being MA Case No.13 of
2021, however, the learned court has dismissed the said alteration
case without appreciating the facts and in view of that, the said
order may kindly be set aside. According to him, the petitioner was
convicted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the
complainant/ OP No.2, and in view of that, subsequently, he has
been acquitted and in view of that also, the order of the learned
court dismissing the alteration case is not in accordance with law.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
pursuant to the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to
-3- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:10599]
pay Rs.Three lakhs to wife, the petitioner has paid Rs.One lakh to
the wife. On these grounds, he submits that the said order may
kindly be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the O.P.no.2, who is the wife, submits that the learned
court has rightly passed the said order appreciating the entire facts
as well as the materials on record, and in view of that, there is no
illegality in the impugned order. She also submits that in the
compromise petition, the petitioner has undertaken to pay
Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife and further undertaking was
there that the petitioner will pay the arrears after he will be
reinstated in service. She also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench
has passed the order for payment of Rs.Three lacs to the wife and
that order has also not been complied. She next submits that the
petitioner has also solemnized second marriage in absence of any
divorce. She then submits that two daughters are there and now
they have attained the age of their marriage and they are
marriageable. She next submits that only to deny the responsibility,
even the petitioner has instigated the second wife to file
maintenance case against the petitioner.
5. Learned court, while passing the order dated
29.8.2023 in MA Case No.13 of 2021 has elaborately dealt with the
application and it has considered the witnesses examined in the said
case as well as the opposite party. The learned court has also found
-4- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023
[2026:JHHC:10599]
that in the compromise arrived between the parties, the petitioner
has given undertaking to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to Noor Tara
and the petitioner was reinstated on 10.05.2023. The learned court
further observed that the learned court has not altered the
maintenance order as it was on the basis of the compromise. The
learned court has also found that the second wife has also filed a
maintenance case in which the learned court has ordered to deduct
Rs.30,000/- from the salary of the petitioner to pay the wife. Prima-
facie, it appears that in a well-planned manner the petitioner has
got the maintenance case filed by the second wife as both are
residing together, meaning thereby, that the said maintenance
amount is being utilized by the petitioner and the second wife. The
petitioner has solemnized the second marriage in absence of any
divorce. The maintenance is not a charity, but, it is a legal right,
aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle-akin to that enjoyed
during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving
social standards. The learned court has passed the said order on the
basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner, as such, no case of
interference is made out. Hence, this petition, being Cr. Revision No.
1400 of 2023, is, hereby, dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 10.04.2026
SI/,
-5- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023
