Dismissed¶25

Rahbar Ali v. Nilofer Perween

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC

Jharkhand HC13 Oct 2025Cr.Rev./656/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr. Revision No.656 of 2024; decided 13.10.2025 by Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; Section 125 CrPC maintenance; revision against Principal Judge, Family Court Sahibganj; maintenance Rs.7,000/- per month to wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to minor son from 13.06.2022; assessment of husband's income, undisclosed business/shop income; Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SC 324 referred; dowry demand Rs.5,00,000/- allegation; petition dismissed, maintenance order upheld.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court considered all aspects elaborately: the petitioner has a small shop in the market and his entire income was not disclosed in the testimony, and the lower court also considered Rajnesh Vs. Neha before directing payment of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor son. ¶24

Rahbar Ali Vs Nilofer Perween — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:31505

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No.656 of 2024

¶4

Rahbar Ali @ Md. Rahber Ali, aged about 45, S/o Late Haider Ali, Resident of L.N. Singh Road, Momin tola, P.O.- Nathnagar, P.S.- Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur (Bihar) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Nilofer Perween W/O - Rahbar Ali D/O - Md. Mahmood Alam,

¶7

Atif Ali, aged about 07 months represented through her mother (opposite party no.1) as legal guardian Both Resident of Bengali Tola P.S - Sahibganj (Town) District Sahibganj (Jharkhand)

¶8

… Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate.

¶13

¶14

5/13.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner.

¶15

This Cr. Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 09/5/2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 118 of 2022, pursuant to the application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Opposite Party No.2 and by the said judgment, learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sahibganj has been pleased to allow the said application and directed the petitioner to pay of Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party No.1 and further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per months to his legitimate minor son being opposite party No.2, w.e.f. dated 13.06.2022 and further directed to payment of maintenance amount will be paid to the opposite parties by the petitioner on or before 10^th day of the months and further directed to pay arrear accrued from the date of filing of this case to the date of judgment shall be paid by the petitioner within six months from the date of order.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of Mohammadan Law being Matrimonial Case No.207 of 2022 before the

¶17

¶18

2025:JHHC:31505

¶19

Family Court, Bhagalpur. He further submits that in the meantime, the Maintenance Case being 118 of 2022 was filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage was solemnized on 02.12.2020 according to custom and rituals of Muslims and after marriage, both couple started living together and after six months of her marriage, the petitioner and his relatives started subjecting the applicant to cruelty and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 10.05.2022. It is further alleged that opposite Party No.1 gave birth of a male child, who is opposite party No.2. He then submits that it is further alleged that the petitioner is a person of sufficient means and he earns Rs.60,000/- from the business of silk clothes and dull cloth manufacture and sell and he also earn Rs.20,000/- per month from the rent of shop of his factory. In light of these facts, opposite party No.1 prayed to direct the petitioner for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs.3,000/- for maintenance of her minor son. He further submits that the learned Court has been pleased to allow the said application. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is not able to pay the said amount, as it is in higher side. In view of that, he lastly submits that this application may kindly be allowed.

¶20

The Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that the learned court in deciding the same has appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has found that AW-1, who is the wife has reiterated the fact in her statement that her husband earns earn Rs.60,000/- from the business of silk clothes and dull cloth manufacture

¶21

¶22

2025:JHHC:31505

¶23

and sell and he also earns Rs.20,000/- per month from the rent of shop of his house and workshop. AW-2 has stated in examination-in-chief that he has seen the workshop of his son-in-law, in which 5 to 6 persons were working, although he has not seen the license of workshop. PW-3 has also deposed in para-16 that he has seen the workshop of petitioner, in which 15-20 workers were working there. Petitioner herein has accepted that he has a small grocery shop. AW-3 has reiterated the same thing. The question was put to OPW-1 Alam Ansari regarding the business of the petitioner and in the cross-examination, he has accepted in para-11 that the Rahbar has a small cloth shop and he has no knowledge as to whether he has his house for conducting power-loom or not. He has further deposed that he has no knowledge as to what has been written in the affidavit. OPW-2 has almost reiterated the same facts in his cross-examination.

¶24

The learned Court has considered all the aspects elaborately and considering that the petitioner has small shop in the market, the entire income is not disclosed in the entire testimony and the learned and also considered the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SC 324 and considering all the aspect, the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor son. In view of the above, it is found that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶25

As such, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

13.10.2025

¶28

R.Kumar

¶29

Rahbar Ali v. Nilofer Perween

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahbar Ali v. Nilofer Perween

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunit Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Diwakar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkumar Gupta Alias Raj Sahu Vs Hira Lal Sahu

Ujjwal Kumar Sahu Alias Ujjal Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dipak Sonar Vs State of Jharkhand

Kudush Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand