Dismissed¶33

MD Samsul v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Apr 2026Cr.Rev./1400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023; High Court of Jharkhand; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; dismissed; section 127 CrPC alteration of maintenance; section 125 CrPC; compromise undertaking Rs.25,000/- per month; acquittal via Cr.Appeal No.139 of 2019; reinstatement by Central Coalfields Limited without back wages; second marriage without divorce; alleged engineering of second wife's maintenance case; Rs.30,000/- salary deduction; Noor Tara; Md. Samsul; Bokaro; Ranchi.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was passed on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner (to pay Rs.25,000/- per month under the compromise), and therefore no case of interference with it arises; the revision petition is dismissed. ¶33

MD Samsul Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.08.2023 of the learned court dismissing the petitioner's application under section 127 CrPC for alteration of maintenance (MA Case No.13 of 2021, arising out of OMC No.95 of 2015) should be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Court's answer

¶33

Key takeaways

Maintenance is not a charity but a legal right, aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards.obiter¶33
The court recorded a prima facie view that the petitioner, in a well-planned manner, caused the maintenance case to be filed by the second wife with whom he resides, the second marriage having been solemnized in absence of any divorce.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) dismisses Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Maintenance Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 (arising out of Original Maintenance Case (M.P) No.95 of 2015) dismissing the petitioner's application under section 127 CrPC for alteration of maintenance payable to his wife Noor Tara. Maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month had been fixed through a compromise in which the petitioner undertook to pay that amount, upon which the section 125 CrPC case was disposed of. After the petitioner's acquittal (Cr.Appeal No.139 of 2019 having set aside his conviction dated 26.6.2019 under sections 323, 387, 494, 497, 498A IPC) and reinstatement by M/s Central Coalfields Limited on 10.05.2023 without back wages, he sought alteration; the court found no case for interference as the impugned order rested on his undertaking. The court noted the second marriage solemnized in absence of any divorce and recorded a prima facie view that the petitioner had engineered the second wife's maintenance case (with a Rs.30,000/- monthly salary deduction) while residing with her, observing that maintenance is not a charity but a legal right aimed at preserving dignity and lifestyle akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards.

¶1

[2026:JHHC:10599]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023

¶5

----

¶6

Md. Samsul, aged about 35 years, son of Md. Rashid Ansari, resident of C/o Amrulla Ansari (Wasim), resident of Gaush Gali, Near Masjid, Abdul Karim Lane, Purani Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, PIN 834001 .... Petitioner(s)

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

1. State of Jharkhand

¶9

2. Noor Tara, aged about 32 years, wife of Md. Samsul, daughter of Rasul Bux, presently residing at Village-Jhirkey Basti, PO Kathara, PS Gomia, District Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶10

3. CCL, resident of Office of the Project Officer, Jarangdih Colliery, PO and PS Jarangdih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶11

…… ….. .... Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate For the C.C.L. :- Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate ----

¶16

09 /10.04.2026 This matter has been assigned to this Court by the

¶17

Hon’ble The Chief Justice and that is how, this petition has been listed.

¶18

This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Maintenance Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 arising out of Original Maintenance Case (M.P) No.95 of 2015 by which the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the maintenance petition in Maintenance Alteration Case No.13 of 2021 arising out of Original Maintenance

¶19

-1- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023

¶20

[2026:JHHC:10599]

¶21

Case (MP) No.95 of 2015.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage has been solemnized between the petitioner and the OP No.2 as per the muslim rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters and one son. He next submits that the OP No.2 has filed a petition under section 125 Cr.PC which was registered as OMC No.95 of 2015. He further submits that a compromise has arrived between both the parties and the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the O.P.No.2 and on the basis of the said compromise, the said case under section 125 Cr.PC was disposed of. He next submits that in the meantime the OP No.2 has filed a complaint case before the learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat which was numbered as Complaint Case No.392 of 2015 on 2.7.2015 and accordingly under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the order of the learned trial court, the FIR was registered being Bokaro Thermal PS Case No.135 of 2015 for the offence under section 323, 498A, 497, 420, 406, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further by the judgment dated 26.6.2019 passed in connection with Bokaro Thermal PS Case No.135 of 2015, corresponding to GR Case No.1178 of 2015, T.R.No. 1106 of 2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bermo at Tenughat convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 323, 387, 494, 497, 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the said case. He next submits that being dissatisfied of the said judgment, the

¶23

-2- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023

¶24

[2026:JHHC:10599]

¶25

petitioner has preferred Cr.Appeal No.139 of 2019 before the before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat and the said Appeal was allowed and conviction of the petitioner was set aside. He next submits that the petitioner being a workman under the Establishment of M/s Central Coalfields Limited was dismissed from his service vide order dated 17/18.7.2020. He further submits that after acquittal the petitioner had made representation before the Management of M/s Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 10.5.2023, however, the period from 18.7.2020 to the date of joining was treated as not found to be counted and it was also instructed that the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages and consequential benefits. He next submits that the petitioner in the aforesaid background has filed application under section 127 CrPC for alteration and modification of the maintenance amount being MA Case No.13 of 2021, however, the learned court has dismissed the said alteration case without appreciating the facts and in view of that, the said order may kindly be set aside. According to him, the petitioner was convicted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the complainant/ OP No.2, and in view of that, subsequently, he has been acquitted and in view of that also, the order of the learned court dismissing the alteration case is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to

¶26

-3- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023

¶27

[2026:JHHC:10599]

¶28

pay Rs.Three lakhs to wife, the petitioner has paid Rs.One lakh to the wife. On these grounds, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.2, who is the wife, submits that the learned court has rightly passed the said order appreciating the entire facts as well as the materials on record, and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order. She also submits that in the compromise petition, the petitioner has undertaken to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife and further undertaking was there that the petitioner will pay the arrears after he will be reinstated in service. She also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has passed the order for payment of Rs.Three lacs to the wife and that order has also not been complied. She next submits that the petitioner has also solemnized second marriage in absence of any divorce. She then submits that two daughters are there and now they have attained the age of their marriage and they are marriageable. She next submits that only to deny the responsibility, even the petitioner has instigated the second wife to file maintenance case against the petitioner.

¶30

Learned court, while passing the order dated 29.8.2023 in MA Case No.13 of 2021 has elaborately dealt with the application and it has considered the witnesses examined in the said case as well as the opposite party. The learned court has also found

¶31

-4- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023

¶32

[2026:JHHC:10599]

¶33

that in the compromise arrived between the parties, the petitioner has given undertaking to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to Noor Tara and the petitioner was reinstated on 10.05.2023. The learned court further observed that the learned court has not altered the maintenance order as it was on the basis of the compromise. The learned court has also found that the second wife has also filed a maintenance case in which the learned court has ordered to deduct Rs.30,000/- from the salary of the petitioner to pay the wife. Primafacie, it appears that in a well-planned manner the petitioner has got the maintenance case filed by the second wife as both are residing together, meaning thereby, that the said maintenance amount is being utilized by the petitioner and the second wife. The petitioner has solemnized the second marriage in absence of any divorce. The maintenance is not a charity, but, it is a legal right, aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle-akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards. The learned court has passed the said order on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner, as such, no case of interference is made out. Hence, this petition, being Cr. Revision No. 1400 of 2023, is, hereby, dismissed.

¶34

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶35

Dated : 10.04.2026 SI/,

¶36

-5- Cr. Revision No.1400 of 2023

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Maintenance Alteration Case No.13 of 2021, arising out of Original Maintenance Case (M.P) No.95 of 2015, dismissing the petitioner's application for alteration of maintenance.¶18
29.08.2023
Prior proceeding
Opposite Party No.2 (the wife) filed a maintenance petition under section 125 CrPC, registered as OMC No.95 of 2015.¶22
Prior proceeding
A compromise was reached whereby the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to OP No.2, and the section 125 CrPC case was disposed of on that basis.¶22
Prior proceeding
OP No.2 filed Complaint Case No.392 of 2015 on 2.7.2015 before the learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat; on a Section 156(3) CrPC direction the FIR (Bokaro Thermal PS Case No.135 of 2015) was registered for offences under sections 323, 498A, 497, 420, 406, 387/34 IPC.¶22
Prior proceeding
By judgment dated 26.6.2019 (Bokaro Thermal PS Case No.135 of 2015; GR Case No.1178 of 2015; T.R.No. 1106 of 2019) the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bermo at Tenughat convicted the petitioner under sections 323, 387, 494, 497, 498A IPC.¶22
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's Cr.Appeal No.139 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat was allowed and his conviction set aside (acquittal).¶25
Prior proceeding
The petitioner, a workman under the establishment of M/s Central Coalfields Limited, was dismissed from service vide order dated 17/18.7.2020.¶25
Prior proceeding
After acquittal and representation, the petitioner was reinstated by order dated 10.5.2023; the period from 18.7.2020 to joining was not counted and he was denied back wages and consequential benefits.¶25
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed an application under section 127 CrPC for alteration and modification of the maintenance amount (MA Case No.13 of 2021), which the learned court dismissed.¶25
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to an order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to pay Rs.Three lakhs to the wife, the petitioner states he has paid Rs.One lakh.¶28

MD Samsul v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Samsul 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

Jasimuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Parsad Gupta @ Satish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Soma Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dasrath Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Mustkim Ansari @ Mustakim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Roushan Srivastava Alias Roushan Kumar Alias Roshan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand