Md. Kalim Ansari Vs Sabila Khatoon — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Md. Kalim Ansari Vs Sabila Khatoon — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Godda (Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to opposite party no.2) is on the higher side, the petitioner having pleaded that he is unemployed with no source of income save 1 Bigha of land.

Court's answer

The amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance granted to the opposite parties is a meager amount.

Ratio / Principle

There is self-contradiction in the petitioner's submissions, pleading lack of proper means to maintain himself while on the other hand seeking a one-time settlement or to keep the opposite parties with him with full dignity and honour.

Key takeaways

Since the learned court below appropriately considered the evidence on record in awarding Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance, the Revisional Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 and dismissed the revision application.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. Revision No. 1105 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (neutral citation 2026:JHHC:20169) — Md. Kalim Ansari v. Sabila Khatoon & Sana Parween. The petitioner challenged only the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Maintenance Case No.206 of 2021 (order dated 26.04.2025): Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 — contending he is unemployed with no source of income save 1 Bigha of land, while expressing readiness to keep opposite party no.1 with him with full dignity and honour. The Court noted that the petitioner's income had been assessed at Rs.40,000/- per month in the impugned order, characterized the Rs.6,000/- per month maintenance as a meager amount, observed self-contradiction between his plea of indigence and his offer of a one-time settlement or reconciliation, held that the court below had appropriately considered the evidence on record, declined to interfere, and dismissed the revision application. Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

( 2026:JHHC:20169 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1105 of 2025

Md. Kalim Ansari --- Petitioner

Versus

Sabila Khatoon 2. Sana Parween ----- Opp. Parties ---

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Indra Bhushan Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Opp. Parties:

03/08.07.2026 Heard Mr. Indra Bhushan Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

In this application the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Maintenance Case No.206 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to make payment of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2.

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his prayer only with respect to the quantum of maintenance which according to him, is on the higher side as the petitioner is an unemployed person and save and except 1 Bigha of land, he does not have any source of income. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep the opposite party no.1 with him with full dignity and honour.

It appears from the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 that the income of the petitioner has been assessed to be Rs.40,000/- per month. The amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance granted to the opposite parties, is a meager amount and there appears to be self-contradiction in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner does not have proper means to maintain himself but on the other hand, he wants one time settlement or to keep the opposite parties with him with full dignity and honour.

2

In view of the fact that the learned court below has appropriately considered the evidence on record and has awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.206 of 2021 and consequently this revision application stands dismissed.

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

Shamim/ Uploaded on : 10 /07/2026