[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Furkan Alam @ Md. Furkan Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.523 of 2024
======================================================
Furkan Alam @ Md. Furkan Alam Son Of Jahiruddin Ansari R/O- Baradari
Mohalla, Purani Shahar, Daudnagar, P.S.- Daudnagar, Distt.- Aurangabad,
Presently Posted In The Office Of Commandant 104 Bn. Bsf Khasiamangal,
Teliamura (Tripura)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Saema Arfa Wife Of Furkan Alam R/O- Ward No. 3, Baradari Muhalla,
Purani Shahar Daudnagar, Distt.- Aurangabad (BIHAR), At Present Residing
At House Of Md. Isteyak Ahmad, Resident Of Village Bala Pokhar, P.S.-
Deo, Distt.- Aurangabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate
Ms. Saobiya Mushtaque, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal revision petition has been
filed for setting aside the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in
Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the
learned Family Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/-
per month to opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance
from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 13.05.2022 with
direction that the maintenance amount would be paid within
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.523 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
2/6
10th date of each and every succeeding month and arrears of
maintenance amount would be paid by the petitioner in 20 equal
installments. Further, the learned Family Court directed to pay
Rs.15,000/- to opposite party no. 2 for litigation expenses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order is bad in law and on facts. The learned
Principal Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is not
neglecting and refusing to maintain the opposite party no. 2 but
it is the opposite party no. 2, who, without any sufficient reason,
has refused to live with the petitioner. Learned Principal Judge
further erred in recording a finding that the petitioner has been
earning Rs.80,000/- per month. Learned trial court further erred
in assessing the status of the parties in granting maintenance to
opposite party no. 2 so as allow her maintain a similar life style
as in her matrimonial home considering the capacity of the
petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the basic salary
of the petitioner is only Rs.33,000/- but the said fact has not
been considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is still
willing and ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with honour
and dignity but she refuses to stay with the petitioner or in the
accommodation provided by the petitioner. Therefore, the order
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.523 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
3/6
impugned is illegal, improper and not sustainable in the eyes of
law and the same is fit to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party no. 2 vehemently contends that there is no
infirmity in the order of the learned Principal Judge. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner never intended to
keep the opposite party no. 2 with honour and dignity. Several
attempts were made for settlement and even at the instance of
learned Co-ordinate Bench, the matter was referred to
Mediation Centre but the mediation failed. The petitioner did
not make any payment of the maintenance amount or arrears
except Rs.1,50,000/- which was paid to opposite party no. 2 in
terms of orders of the learned Co-ordinate Bench dated
18.10.2024
. Thereafter, the recovery of further maintenance
amount was stayed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench. Learned
counsel further submits that when the petitioner was directed to
file affidavit of assets and liabilities he did not furnish his salary
slip and left that column blank. So the petitioner cannot be
allowed to agitate the matter before this Court on this account.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is employed
in BSF and similarly placed Constable of BSF is getting gross
salary of Rs.79139/- and after deduction which comes to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.523 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
Rs.72958/-. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
trial court on the basis of document available on record as well
as assets and liabilities of the parties and status of parties in the
facts and circumstances, allowed maintenance amount of
Rs.20,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 which is
just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive. Learned
counsel further submits that, moreover, the petitioner has failed
to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order so
as to interfere in the order by this Court in revisional
jurisdiction.
5. By way of reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that as on date the basic salary of the
petitioner is Rs.34,300/- and gross salary is Rs.69976/- and after
deduction which comes to Rs.63858/- as per the salary slip of
May, 2025.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that
the learned trial court has taken note of the fact that the
petitioner, though a salaried person, did not produce his salary
slip and left the column blank as submitted by learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2. Even as per the salary slip, the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.523 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
petitioner has been getting gross salary of Rs.69,976/- in May,
2025 which must have increased with passage of time. The
scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction is very limited.
In revisional jurisdiction the court cannot re-appreciate the fact
or the material unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in
the impugned order or some material irregularity, the courts are
forbidden to interfere in the order under challenge in revisional
jurisdiction. Therefore, finding no merit this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the impugned order except to the
challenge of quantum of maintenance amount on the ground that
it has been held in catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that 25% of the salary of a salaried person could be
awarded maintenance amount. Learned Principal Judge, Family
Court arrived at its conclusion about the income of the petitioner
in absence of the salary slip of the petitioner. But the court
should have directed the petitioner or his employer to produce
salary slip as the petitioner did not produce the salary slip before
the learned trial court. However, taking the salary of the
petitioner to be around Rs.72,000/- as on date, considering the
salary slip of May, 2025, the petitioner must pay Rs.18,000/- per
month to opposite party no. 2. The order dated 30.05.2024
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.523 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2022 is modified to the extent that
in place of Rs.20,000/- the petitioner is directed to pay
Rs.18,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. The rest of
the order will remain the same.
8. Accordingly, the present revision petition
stands disposed of.
9. The opposite party no. 2 is at liberty to have
recourse of law for execution of the order of maintenance
including approaching the employer of the petitioner.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.02.2026
Transmission Date 23.02.2026
