Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:35973

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr. Revision No. 379 of 2025

¶5

----

¶6

Saddam Hussain aged about 32 years old, son of Shaikh Shakeel Ahmad, resident of F-281, Serial No.10, near Chand Masjid Shastri Park, North East, Bhajanpura, Post Office and Police Station Salempur, District North East, Delhi 110053 …… …. .... Petitioner(s)

¶7

…… …. .... Petitioner(s)

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2.Raquiba Parween aged about 19 years old, daughter of Md. Murtaza Ansari, resident of Bhatta Mohalla Panderpala, Post Office-B Poltechnique, Police Station-Bhuli O.P. (Bank More), District Dhanbad – 828130

¶10

…… ….. .... Opp. Parties

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

For the Petitioner(s)	:-	Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate
For the State	:-	Ms. Sushma Aind, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2	:-	Ms Aulia Begum, Advocate
		----

¶14

5 /02.12.2025 I.A.No.4160 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 133 days.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in preparation of filing of the present petition such delay has occurred and in view of that the said delay may kindly be condoned.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent State and the O.P.No.2 have got no serious objection if such delay is condoned.

¶17

In view of submission of the learned counsel for the parties and further in light of the contents of the instant I.A, delay of 133 days occurred in filing of

¶18

Cr. Revision No.379 of 2025

¶19

2025:JHHC:35973

¶20

the instant criminal revision petition is, hereby, condoned, and the instant I.A meant for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent State and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

¶22

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.773 /2022 filed by the wife for maintenance which has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- lump-sum amount as litigation cost.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 has already been dissolved in light of the judgment of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North-East District, Karkarduma Court, Delhi in C.S. No.42/2023. He further submits that the mater was sent by the Coordinate Bench by order dated 09.07.2025 for mediation to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (Jhalsa), Ranchi, and pursuant to that, mediation has taken place and the mediation was successful and both the sides have decided to live separately and permanent one-time settlement was fixed to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and pursuant to that, Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited pursuant to the order of this Court and the balance amount is Rs.2 lacs, and it has been further settled that the petitioner shall pay to the O.P.No.2 the rest amount in three installments within six months from the date of signing of the settlement agreement dated 08.08.2025. He then submits that in view of the settlement, this matter may kindly be disposed of. He also submits that it has been also agreed that the O.P.No.2 will withdraw the criminal as well as civil cases filed against the petitioner and that settlement agreement has been signed by the petitioner,

¶24

2 Cr. Revision No.379 of 2025

¶25

2025:JHHC:35973

¶26

O.P.No.2 and the mediator on 18.08.2025. On these grounds, he submits that this criminal revision petition may kindly be disposed of.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submits that from the report, it appears that the settlement has been arrived between the parties.

¶28

Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 also submits that the matter has been settled and divorce has already been granted and she has received a sum of Rs.50,000/- and she further submits that, however, the final payment has not been made, however, she is not disputing the settlement.

¶29

In view of above and considering that the matter is arising out of Section 125 Cr.P.C and in view of further development, divorce has already been taken place and one-time permanent alimony is said to be Rs.2,50,000/- and both the sides have arrived at settlement and settlement agreement is signed by both the sides including the mediator, in that view of that matter, the order of the learned court with regard to the maintenance, being order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.773 /2022 will merge in the order of one-time alimony, and in view of that, the petitioner is not required to pay maintenance in terms of the said order of the learned court.

¶30

This petition, being Cr. Revision No.379 of 2025, is disposed of.

¶31

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Dated : 02^nd Dec., 2025

¶34

SI/

¶35

3 Cr. Revision No.379 of 2025

Saddam Hussain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Hussain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Jaiswal Alias Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khajamuddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Abhijit Mukhopadhyay Vs Mousumi Mukherjee(Mukhopadhyay Alias Chatterjee)

Brij Kishore Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anup Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand