IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.198 of 2019

Samad Ali @ Abdul Shamad Aged About 33 Years S/O Ahamad Ansari
Resident Of Village- Biseni Kala, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Rohtas.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

Nuraisha Khatoon Aged About 31 Years Gender-Female W/O Samad Ali @
Abdul Shamad Resident Of Village- Biseni Kala, P.S.- Rajpur, District-
Rohtas.

… … Respondent/s

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 28-03-2019

Heard parties.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for

setting aside the order dated 14.08.2018 passed in Maintenance

Case No. 06 of 2013 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,

Rohtas at Sasaram by which the learned Judge Family court has

directed for payment of maintenance to Wife-Opposite Party

No. 2 Rs. 3000/- per month and sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to

the minor daughter Rozzy Khatoon.

3. Opposite Party No. 2 had filed a petition for grant of

maintenance inter alia stating therein that marriage between the

petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized in the year
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.198 of 2019 dt.28-03-2019
2/6

2007 according to Mohammedan Law and after marriage

Opposite Party No. 2 came to her matrimonial home and from

said wedlock a daughter Rozzy Khatoon was born and after

birth of female child family of petitioner and petitioner started

demanding Rs. 1 Lac and for non fulfillment of said demand

Opposite Party No. 2 was subjected to torture and harassment

and she was ousted from her matrimonial home and forced to

take shelter in her parental home along with her minor daughter.

4. It has been further contended that she has no source

of income and is unable to maintain herself, however, petitioner

has sufficient source of income and is not maintaining Opposite

Party No. 2 (wife) and his minor daughter and as such she has

filed the maintenance case, as petitioner is bound to maintain

her. Petitioner is employed in ply factory in Mumbai and is

getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month and as such petitioner

has prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month for

her and sum of Rs. 2000/- per month for her minor daughter.

5. Petitioner had appeared in the Court and an effort

was made for reconciliation but the dispute did not resolve and

reconciliation failed on 10.12.2015.

6. In support of her claim for maintenance Opposite

Party No. 2 had examined herself as PW-1 and Md. Hafiz
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.198 of 2019 dt.28-03-2019
3/6

Ansari as PW-2 and they were cross-examined by the petitioner

at length. Petitioner also examined four witnesses to deny the

claim of Opposite Party No. 2. Usman Ansari was examined as

Witness No. 1, Mojiboor Rahman was examined as Witness No.

2, Md. Ansari was examined as Witness No. 3 and Samad Ali

(petitioner) was examined as Witness No. 4.They were

examined and cross-examined by the Opposite Party No. 2 and

evidence was closed on 13.04.2018.

7. During course of proceeding a petition for interim

maintenance was filed and same was allowed by order dated

28.02.2018 for payment of Rs. 1500/- as interim maintenance

but no maintenance was paid by the petitioner to Wife-Opposite

Party No. 2, and he did not even pay the cost awarded for

seeking unnecessary adjournment. Nuraisha Khatoon (wife

Opposite Party No. 2 ) in her deposition as PW-1 has stated that

she was married to petitioner on 13.06.2007 and a daughter was

born on 21.09.2009 namely Rozzy Khatoon and thereafter Rs. 1

Lac was demanded from her for construction of house and when

said demand was not fulfilled, she was ousted from her

matrimonial home in the year 2010 and even she was not

allowed to bring her ornaments and since then she is living in

her parental home with her mother. She has stated that
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.198 of 2019 dt.28-03-2019
4/6

petitioner-husband is working in Mumbai and getting salary of

Rs. 20,000/- and has also income from land. She has claimed

maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month so that she could live

with her minor daughter with dignity and comfort. She has

further stated that petitioner has entered into second marriage.

She has further alleged that as she was being assaulted she is not

ready to leave with petitioner. She has denied that she has any

source of income.

8. PW-2 Hafiz Ansari is father of Opposite Party No. 2

who has supported the case of his daughter for grant of

maintenance. He has stated in his cross-examination that since

petitioner has solemnized second marriage his daughter is not

willing to go there. He has further stated that she was not kept

properly in her matrimonial home and was ousted in the year

2010 and since then she is living with him.

9. Petitioner Samad Ali-Husband has deposed as

Witness No. 4 and has admitted the factum of marriage and also

a daughter being born from the said wedlock. He has admitted

that wife-Opposite Party No. 2 is living separately for last nine

years with her minor daughter. He has further stated that he is a

labourer in cloth mill and earns Rs. 3500/- per month. He has

also admitted that he has been convicted by the court of law in a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.198 of 2019 dt.28-03-2019
5/6

case filed by Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 498A of the

IPC. He has also admitted that he has entered into second

marriage.

10. In support of his case three witnesses have been

examined on his behalf and Witness No. 3 is father of petitioner

and they have supported the defence of petitioner.

11. Considering the evidence on record and after

hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Family Court has

found that the marriage of petitioner with Opposite Party No. 2

and a daughter born out of the said wedlock is admitted by both

the parties. It is also admitted that Opposite Party No. 2 is

residing in her parental home since 2010 and she has no source

of income as such she is unable to maintain herself whereas

petitioner is working in a power-loom factory and is bound to

maintain his first wife and his minor daughter. Opposite Party

No. 2 has sufficient cause for not living with petitioner as he has

entered into second marriage and she was being tortured and

assaulted in her matrimonial home and ousted from there in the

year 2010. The family Court has held that petitioner has

sufficient means and income whereas Wife-Opposite

Party No. 2 has no source of income. Petitioner is not

maintaining his wife and as such has directed him
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.198 of 2019 dt.28-03-2019
6/6

to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to his wife-

Opposite Party No. 2 and Rs. 2000/- per month to her minor

daughter till she remains unmarried.

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

perusing the order passed by the Family Court as well as

deposition of Opposite Party No. 2, this Court does not find any

error illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Family

Court.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

(S. Kumar, J)

ranjan/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 03.04.2019
Transmission Date 03.04.2019