Dismissed¶¶19

Sagir Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Criminal Revision – maintainability – Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1982

Jharkhand HC8 Sept 2025Cr.Rev./659/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — Cr. Revision No.659 of 2019, Sagir Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Shamsun Bibi), decided 08.09.2025 by Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Maintainability of criminal revision against Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order under Section 19(4) Family Court Act, 1982 upheld; ex-parte maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month (order dated 29.11.2014, Family Court, Palamau) affirmed as free from illegality; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In view of Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1982, the Criminal Revision against the final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable and the High Court can entertain it. ¶¶10

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

¶1

2025:JHHC:26972

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.659 of 2019

¶3

Sagir Ansari aged about 34 years, S/o Pir Mohamad Ansari, R/o villageNimiya, P.O.- Kadhwan, PS- Rehala, District-Palamau, State- Jharkhand

¶4

… Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Shamsun Bibi, W/o Sagir Ansari, D/o Khuda Bux Ansari, R/o villageNimiya, P.O.- Kadhwan, PS- Rehala, District-Palamau, StateJharkhand. … Opp. Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate ------

¶10

7/08.09.2025 In view of Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1982, it transpires that the Criminal Revision is maintainable and the High Court can entertain the petition passed in the final form under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In view of that, office objection is overruled.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 29.11.2014 passed in M.P. No.101 of 2013 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the O.P. No.2 for maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 as maintenance, which will be payable by 15^th of each succeeding month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the date of the order.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband and the said order has been passed ex-parte . He

¶14

¶15

2025:JHHC:26972

¶16

submits that the amount is in higher side and the petitioner is not able to pay the same and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be setaside.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party submits that the maintenance amount has not been paid to the opposite party No.2 and in view of that, she is suffering. He submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has called for the Trial Court Record by the order dated 14.06.2024, which has been received and the reasoned order is there and in view of that, this Criminal Revision Petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶18

It is admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 and Rs.4,000/- has been allowed by the learned Court for maintenance and in view that Rs.4,000/- is a meager amount to pay as maintenance to the O.P. No.2 and the petitioner being the husband is bound to maintain the wife. From the impugned order, which has been received along with the trial court record, it transpires that all steps have been taken to notice upon the petitioner through Nazarat, registered notice, paper publication, in spite of that, the petitioner avoided to appear before the learned Court and in view of that the learned court has fixed the case to hear ex-parte and thereafter the ex-parte order has been passed. In view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶19

As such, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.

¶20

Let the Trial Court Record be sent back forthwith.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

R.Kumar

¶23

Sagir Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagir Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishwash Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Rajwar Alias Pradeep Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Pandey Vs Somi Pandey

Raman Jee Tiwary Vs Chandani Tiwary

Sunil Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand