Dismissed¶31

Khajamuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2025Cr.Rev./614/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; husband's criminal revision against Family Court, Pakur order awarding Rs.4,000/- per month to wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to minor daughter; condonation of 214 days' delay (I.A. No.11132 of 2024); agreement not to demand maintenance held invalid as wife's signature taken on blank paper in cross-examination; total maintenance of Rs.5,000/- held meager; revision dismissed and stay I.A. rejected; Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; decided 01.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 214 days in filing the Cr. Revision is condoned and I.A. No.11132 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of. ¶20

Khajamuddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:35780

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No.614 of 2025

¶4

Khajamuddin Ansari, aged about 27 years, S/O Khalek Mian, R/O - Chhot Kendua, P.O - Devinagar, P.S.-Maheshpur, Dist. Pakur, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Marjina Khatun @ Marjina Bibi, aged about 26 years W/O Khajamuddin Ansari and D/O Shravan Ravidas, R/O Chhot Kendua, P.O Devinagar P.S Maheshpur, district Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶8

Ayesha Siddiki, D/O - Khajamuddin Ansari aged about 04 years minor represented by mother Marjina Khatun @ Marjina Bibi being the legal and natural guardian of the minor. … Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner	------ : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate.
	Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate Md. Sahrukh Ansari, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP
For the O.P. No.2	: Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate

¶12

¶13

6/01.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

¶14

counsel appearing for the State and opposite parties No.2 & 3.

¶15

I.A. No.11132 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay

¶16

of 214 days in filing the Cr. Revision.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that due to economical problem, the delay has been occurred, as such, the delay may kindly be condoned.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the State and opposite parties have got no objection if the delay is condoned.

¶19

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

¶20

and the reasons assigned in the I.A., the delay of 214 days in filing the Cr. Revision is hereby condoned.

¶21

I.A. No.11132 of 2024 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶22

¶23

2025:JHHC:35780

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Pakur, in connection with Original Maintenance Case No.94 of 2023 whereby the application filed by O.P. No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to his wife O.P. No.2 and Rs.1,000/- to the O.P. No.3 Ayesha Siddiki, Minor daughter.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that total amount of Rs.5,000/- has been allowed by the learned Court and he then submits that the learned Court has allowed such amount of Rs.5,000/-, which is in higher side and in view of that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. He also submits that an agreement has taken place between the petitioner and the wife and she has agreed not to demand of any maintenance. On these grounds he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the agreement is not valid as in the impugned order of the learned Court, it has come that on the blank paper, the signature of the O.P. No.2 was obtained.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 has opposed the prayer and submits that the signature of the wife was taken on the blank paper and she has stated so in the cross-examination before the learned Court. He submits that the learned Court has only allowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the petitioner’s earning is said to be Rs.40,000/-

¶28

¶29

2025:JHHC:35780

¶30

In view of such submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that it has come that during cross-examination, the wife has stated that her signature was taken on paper dated 02.04.2023, but her signature was taken on blank paper. She has also stated in para-15 that she does not mention in her petition that her husband is doing business of Masala, Onion and Chili. In view of the statement of the wife before the learned court, the said agreement, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not valid. Learned court thereafter discussed the entire facts as well as oral and documentary evidences and has also elaborately discussed about the income of the petitioner and thereafter has been pleased to allow the maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner happened to be the husband and O.P. No.2 is wife and O.P. No.3 is minor child. The amount is meager. No interference is required.

¶31