Case Background
The dispute arises out of a matrimonial relationship between the husband and wife, who are both highly educated and from financially well‑off families.
Their marriage was solemnized on 24 February 2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the wife went to her matrimonial home and then lived with her husband at different places including Aligarh, Delhi, Gurugram and foreign countries such as South Korea, France and Singapore.
The wife alleged that after some time she noticed a drastic change in her husband’s behaviour and was subjected to physical, mental, verbal and emotional cruelty by him and his family members. She stated that her family had given substantial cash, gold jewellery, utensils, expensive clothes, gifts and donations at the time of marriage and on several occasions thereafter, yet further demands were made for money allegedly to purchase a flat in Delhi.
According to the wife, since July 2018, the husband deserted her, stopped providing maintenance and misappropriated her jewellery, money and other valuables. She claimed she was ousted from the matrimonial home and has been living separately without any assistance from the husband since August 2018.
The wife filed Maintenance Case No. 35(M) of 2020 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In that proceeding she sought interim maintenance. On 6 March 2024, the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs 35,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife from the date of the order, along with one‑time litigation cost of Rs 25,000.
Both sides were dissatisfied. The husband filed Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2024 before the Patna High Court, contending that he lacked financial capacity to pay that amount. The wife filed Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2024, seeking enhancement and contending that the Family Court’s order did not fully reflect the husband’s income and status, and that it was contrary to the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, heard both criminal revisions together because they challenged the same interim maintenance order passed in Maintenance Case No. 35(M) of 2020.
The Court first recorded the rival factual claims and financial pictures presented by both parties.
On the wife’s side, her case was that the husband is a man of substantial means. She stated that he is a B.Tech and M.Tech graduate from IIT Delhi and had been working since 2008 with a reputed French oil company named “TOTAL” at different international locations such as Yemen, South Korea, Singapore, Paris and Angola. She claimed his initial salary was around Rs 5 lakhs per month, later rising to Rs 8–10 lakhs per month.
The wife further asserted that the husband later left this employment and became the sole owner of “Krish Originals” under the brand name “Hair Originals”, claimed to be valued at approximately Rs 70–80 crores. She relied on his own admission on national television in January 2022 (Shark Tank India on Sony TV) where, according to her, he stated that he drew a monthly income of Rs 7–8 lakhs.
She also placed on record material showing the profile of “Hair Originals”, with an annual revenue of Rs 7.46 crores as per Annexure P6 and an estimated net worth of the husband at Rs 26 crores based on share value, as per Annexure P7. She stated that the company had around 96 employees. She further asserted that the husband had recently raised 2.75 million US dollars for his hair extension start‑up and that, as founder and CEO of a millionaire company, he led an affluent and wealthy life.
The wife additionally alleged that the husband’s parents also had independent income from pension and rent, and that some properties were transferred in the mother‑in‑law’s name after the marriage, allegedly to defeat her rights.
The husband’s version was very different. In his criminal revision, he denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand and instead suggested that the wife had issues of status and superiority. He claimed that while his own father had retired as an office clerk from the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, the wife’s father had been a Director in the Bihar State Electricity Board, leading to a difference in status and lifestyle between the families.
He stated that he came from a middle‑class family, was a graduate from IIT and had supported the wife’s career ambitions. According to him, the wife had completed B.Tech in Computer Engineering from MIT Pune and was keen on pursuing a career in the glamour world, including beauty pageants and event management. He claimed to have invested around Rs 30 lakhs to help her establish her own independent business.
The husband pointed out that the wife became the Director and sole owner of DAMESAI OPC Pvt. Ltd., an event management company which organized events such as “Mrs. India” in September 2023. He further claimed that he had repeatedly transferred large sums of money to the bank account of his mother‑in‑law, and that the wife had rental income from three flats at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
He gave details of three flats at Khirki Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi:
(i) Building No. 104, 1st Floor: said to have been bought by him out of his own income in their joint names, with rent presently going to the wife.
(ii) Building No. 104, 3rd Floor: claimed to have been purchased by his father, with rent allegedly also being received by the wife, who held the papers.
(iii) T3, Satpula Apartment: claimed to have been bought by him in the wife’s name alone, with rent again allegedly going to her.
He also mentioned an additional flat in Noida for which he was paying EMI of Rs 18,000 per month, although possession had not been delivered due to the builder’s bankruptcy. He submitted that he resided in rented premises, supported by his elderly parents with falling health, with approximate medicine expenses of Rs 8,000 per month, and that he had limited capacity.
On income, the husband took the position that he only earned Rs 65,000 per month as salary from his own company and thus could not afford Rs 35,000 per month as interim maintenance.
The wife, in turn, denied that she had any fixed income. She admitted that she occasionally organized events as an event manager but contended this was not enough to maintain herself. She claimed that her company DAMESAI OPC Pvt. Ltd. was running in loss and she had to close it, producing income‑tax returns to support this. She said she had no employment despite her B.Tech degree and was now pursuing an LL.B. from Patna Law University to sustain herself.
On the question of rental income from the Delhi flats, she denied receiving rent and alleged instead that her father‑in‑law had disconnected electricity and illegally evicted the tenants, keeping the flats locked.
The High Court noted that both parties had filed a “series of documents” to support their stands. It also recorded that both sides were highly educated and belonged to a high social and economic strata. The Court took note of social media material indicating that the wife was the founder of “She is India” and that she had been involved with the “Mrs. India” contests, including being on the panel of judges in the 8th edition in 2023.
At the same time, the Court recognised that there was no clear evidence at this stage about whether she was actually earning from these activities and, if so, how much. The wife had not clearly stated in her pleadings whether she earned money from organizing such events, or the quantum of any such earnings.
Similarly, the dispute about the Delhi flats and their rental income was based on conflicting affidavits. The Court held that such issues about who actually enjoyed rent and possession could only be resolved on the basis of evidence at the time of final hearing of the Section 125 CrPC case, not at the interim stage.
The Court then turned to the law on interim maintenance. It referred to the proviso to Section 125(1) CrPC, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and litigation expenses during the pendency of the main maintenance proceedings. The Court explained that this power exists to provide a provisional arrangement for persons in distress and financial hardship, pending final adjudication of maintenance claims.
The Court emphasised that applications for interim maintenance are generally decided on the basis of affidavits, and that the final quantum of maintenance is to be fixed only after evidence, cross‑examination and consideration of affidavits of assets and liabilities in terms of the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
Applying this framework, the Patna High Court observed that the parties were not poor or middle‑class but from the higher strata of society. It noted that the husband had earlier admitted substantial income while working abroad and that he was now founder and CEO of a company with a very high yearly turnover. The Court categorically stated that it was “not in a position to accept” his claim that as CEO he drew only Rs 65,000 per month.
On the other hand, the Court also recognised that the wife was highly qualified, holding a B.Tech degree in Computer Science from MIT Pune and capable of earning money through professional work as a computer engineer or similar job. However, she had chosen to work in the glamour world and event management. Because the record at this stage did not conclusively establish the nature or profitability of her current activities, the Court treated her as in need of interim support pending full evidence.
Crucially, the Court treated the interim maintenance amount of Rs 35,000 per month as just that: a temporary, provisional measure. It held that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the wife presently had no source of income, Rs 35,000 per month was “quite sufficient to live a decent life of one lady in the State of Bihar.”
With this reasoning, the Court found no ground to either reduce or enhance the interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court. It refused to interfere with the order dated 6 March 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 35(M) of 2020.
Accordingly, both Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2024 (by the wife seeking enhancement) and Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2024 (by the husband seeking reduction or cancellation) were dismissed on contest. No order was made as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for spouses, especially wives, who seek interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when the marriage has broken down and they are living separately.
First, the Patna High Court has clarified that interim maintenance is only a temporary arrangement to help the dependent spouse survive during the case. The final maintenance amount will be decided later after full evidence and examination of income and assets.
Second, the Court showed that when the paying spouse claims very low income despite being in a senior position or running a large business, the Court is not bound to accept such a claim blindly, especially when earlier admissions or material on record suggest higher earning capacity.
Third, the Court also indicated that where the receiving spouse is well‑educated and has professional qualifications, the Court may keep that in mind. However, until there is clear proof that such a spouse is earning enough to maintain themselves, interim support can still be granted.
In practical terms, this decision means that in high‑income or high‑status families, a wife who has been deserted and has no clear present income can still expect a reasonable interim maintenance, and such an order is not easily disturbed in revision unless the Family Court’s view is clearly unreasonable.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Should the Patna High Court interfere with the Family Court’s order granting Rs 35,000 per month as interim maintenance and Rs 25,000 as litigation cost to the wife under Section 125 CrPC?
Answer: No. The Court held that Rs 35,000 per month is a reasonable provisional amount for a woman to live decently in Bihar in the given social and economic context, and that disputed questions about exact income and rental receipts must be decided at the final stage, not while fixing interim maintenance. - Issue: Can the husband’s claim of earning only Rs 65,000 per month as CEO of a high‑turnover company be accepted to reduce interim maintenance at this stage?
Answer: No. Based on his own earlier admissions of much higher income and his status as founder and CEO of a company with large turnover, the Court refused to accept his claim of such a low monthly income while considering interim maintenance. - Issue: Is the interim maintenance order contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324?
Answer: The Court did not find any such inconsistency warranting interference. It noted that the final maintenance will be determined after evidence and affidavits of assets and liabilities as per Rajnesh v. Neha, and treated the existing order as a reasonable provisional arrangement.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2024 with Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2024; arising out of Maintenance Case No. 35(M) of 2020
Case Title: Richa Singh v. The State of Bihar & Anr (Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2024); Jitendra Sharma v. Richa Singh (Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2024)
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Date of Judgment: 05-05-2025
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 848
Advocates:
In Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2024:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra
- For the Respondents (including husband): Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
In Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2024:
- For the Petitioner (husband): Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate
- For the Respondent (wife): Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal revisions under Section 397/401 CrPC challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under Section 125 CrPC.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyM3OTkjMjAyNCMxI04=-kl4FAQVjGZQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
