Case Background
The dispute arose out of a marriage solemnised on 05.02.2014 at the wife’s ancestral home in district Supaul. After some time, serious matrimonial differences emerged between the spouses.
On 04.06.2016, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul. The case was registered as Maintenance Case No. 60 of 2016.
The wife alleged that several articles and a cash amount of Rs.23,50,000 were given in marriage to the husband for purchase of a vehicle. She further stated that the husband’s family started demanding an additional Rs.50,00,000 from her father for purchase of a house in Delhi. According to her, when this demand was not met, she was subjected to torture and ultimately taken back and left at her parental home, with her jewellery retained by the husband.
The wife claimed she was pursuing a B.Ed. course, had monthly expenses of Rs.35,000, and no independent source of income. She also stated that she had to incur about Rs.15,000 per month to attend various cases filed against the husband and his family. She sought maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month.
The husband appeared in the maintenance case and filed his written statement. He admitted the marriage but denied receipt of any jewellery or the alleged payment of Rs.23,50,000. He asserted that no dowry was given or demanded and that the marriage was solemnised with mutual consent of both families.
The husband claimed he was doing an ordinary job at Cipla Limited in New Delhi and was just able to maintain himself and his family. He alleged that the wife never stayed with him after marriage, never accepted him mentally or emotionally, and was quarrelsome. According to him, she refused to live in the matrimonial home, threatened suicide if he touched her, and left the matrimonial house on 02.07.2014 never to return.
He further alleged that the wife had a premarital illicit relationship with one person named Washid Ahmad and continued that relationship even after marriage. On this basis, he filed Matrimonial Dissolution Case No. 88 of 2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon. After receiving notice in that divorce case, he claimed, the wife lodged Complaint Case No. 134C of 2016 before the ACJM, Birpur, on false and fabricated allegations to pressurise him.
After recording evidence on both sides, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul, by order dated 08.01.2024, partly allowed the wife’s petition. The Family Court directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month to the wife from 04.06.2016, i.e. the date of filing. Arrears from that date were to be cleared within six months in six equal instalments, subject to adjustment of any maintenance paid in other proceedings.
Aggrieved, the husband filed Criminal Revision No. 257 of 2024 before the Patna High Court seeking to set aside the Family Court’s order.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The criminal revision was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the Patna High Court. The husband questioned both the entitlement of the wife to maintenance and the quantum of Rs.10,000 per month.
The husband’s senior counsel argued that the Family Court order suffered from illegality, irregularity and impropriety. He submitted that the marriage had never been consummated and was voidable, therefore the wife should not get maintenance. He also claimed the wife was not willing to live with him and had been living separately since 2014 by her own choice.
A central plank of the husband’s case was the allegation that the wife had entered into another marriage with the said person and was living in adultery. On that basis, he argued that, under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife living in adultery or having deserted her husband is not entitled to maintenance.
He further submitted that the wife had deserted him, failed to fulfil matrimonial obligations and inflicted mental cruelty. According to him, she had a prior affair with the same person even before marriage and continued that relationship afterwards, which was brought to the notice of the Family Court on 30.10.2023. Yet, the trial court allegedly ignored this fact.
On income, the husband relied on his affidavit of assets and liabilities and a salary slip for September 2023 from Cipla Limited showing a salary of Rs.52,000 per month. He stated his monthly expenses were Rs.49,500, including rent and expenses of aged parents, and argued that he was not in a position to pay maintenance. He claimed the wife was herself earning about Rs.25,000 per month from tuitions and running a beauty parlour and that she received financial support and rental income from her parents’ property.
In support, he cited the Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, contending that the wife had not truly disclosed her income or that of her parents.
On the other hand, counsel for the wife supported the Family Court’s order as proper and valid. He argued that in revision the High Court should not interfere unless there is clear illegality, irregularity or impropriety, particularly where the challenge is only to factual findings.
According to the wife, she had been driven out of her matrimonial home because her father could not meet the demand of Rs.50,00,000 for a flat in Delhi. She denied that the complaint cases were filed in response to the husband’s divorce petition. Rather, she contended, the husband instituted the divorce case in Gurgaon with an oblique motive to harass her and push her out.
The wife’s counsel argued that the husband had made baseless and perverted allegations of extra-marital and premarital affairs. When the husband and his witnesses were examined in the maintenance case, neither he nor his father could even state the name of the person with whom the wife allegedly had an illicit relationship.
The Family Court had specifically noted that the husband produced no evidence to support the allegation of adultery. The High Court took note of this observation.
The wife’s counsel also highlighted that she had resided in her matrimonial home for almost two years, during which the husband used to come from Delhi, and that she was treated like a maidservant by her in-laws. She was, however, always ready to live with her husband. According to her, the husband took her along only to secure bail for himself and then did not restore the relationship.
On quantum, the wife’s counsel argued that, even on the husband’s own admission of salary of about Rs.54,349 per month, Rs.10,000 was on the lower side and should have been at least Rs.18,000 per month. He too referred to Rajnesh (supra) and also relied on Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, AIR 2017 SC 1640, in which the Supreme Court held that the wife’s education or potential self-support, or the financial status of her parents, is no answer to a maintenance claim. The Court must look at the status of parties, paying capacity of the spouse, and whether the applicant has independent income sufficient for support.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court examined the reasoning of the Family Court.
On the allegations of adultery, the High Court noted that the Family Court had already considered this ground and rejected it. The trial court had disbelieved the allegation because there was no evidence. The High Court pointed out that this claim of adultery is still to be proved, if at all, in the separate matrimonial proceeding filed by the husband, and cannot be used at this stage to deny maintenance.
On the allegation that the wife had deserted the husband and refused to live with him, the High Court observed that whether desertion is justifiable must be proved by cogent evidence. The Family Court had discussed this aspect at length and recorded a finding in favour of the wife. The husband failed to discharge his burden.
The Court emphasised that in revision it cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-assess facts simply to arrive at a different view than the trial court. Unless there is manifest perversity or clear legal error, the revisional court must accept the factual findings of the trial court.
On the plea that the marriage had not been consummated, the High Court noted that this assertion was denied by the wife and not substantiated by the husband. In any case, the Court held that even if consummation was in dispute, it would have no bearing on grant or refusal of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
On quantum, the Court found no infirmity in awarding Rs.10,000 per month. The Family Court had considered the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties and the income documents produced. It accepted that the husband worked in a private company and assessed his income to be around Rs.54,000 per month.
The High Court held that, looking at this income, the maintenance fixed could not be said to be excessive. As to the husband’s claim that the wife herself earns well from tuitions and a beauty parlour, the Court observed that this allegation was not proved, though the burden lay on him to establish it. Further, the income of the wife’s parents was held immaterial for deciding maintenance.
The Court underscored that if the wife does not have independent income sufficient to maintain herself, her husband is duty-bound to maintain her. The purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent the wife from falling into destitution or vagrancy.
Finally, the Court noted that the husband had failed to show any material irregularity or illegality in the Family Court’s order. It reiterated that in revisional jurisdiction it cannot act as an appellate court or sit in appeal over the Family Court’s judgment.
Accordingly, the High Court held that there was no merit in the criminal revision petition and dismissed it, thereby confirming the maintenance order in favour of the wife.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for married women who have been turned out of their matrimonial homes and are struggling for basic financial support. It shows that the Patna High Court will not lightly set aside a well-reasoned maintenance order passed by a Family Court.
The ruling clarifies that unproved allegations of adultery, desertion or non-consummation cannot be used by a husband to avoid his legal duty of maintenance. The Court insisted on evidence, not mere accusations.
The judgment also reinforces that a wife’s lack of sufficient independent income is the key factor. The financial status of her parents, or vague claims that she is earning, will not defeat her claim unless the husband can prove such income.
For litigants, the decision underlines the limited scope of criminal revision. A party cannot use revision to re-argue facts already considered by the Family Court. Only serious legal or procedural errors would justify interference.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the husband avoid paying maintenance by alleging that the wife deserted him, is living in adultery, and that the marriage was not consummated?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that these allegations were not proved before the Family Court and, in any event, non-consummation had no bearing on maintenance. The wife remained entitled to maintenance. - Issue: Was the Family Court’s award of Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance excessive given the husband’s income and alleged expenses?
Answer: No. Based on the husband’s income of about Rs.54,000 per month as accepted by the Family Court, the High Court found the amount reasonable and not excessive. - Issue: Could the revisional court re-assess evidence and factual findings of the Family Court in a Section 125 CrPC matter?
Answer: No. The Court reiterated that in revision it cannot act as an appellate court or reappraise evidence, and will interfere only where there is manifest illegality or perversity, which was not present here.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324
- Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, AIR 2017 SC 1640
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 257 of 2024
Case Title: Bharat Mani v. Khusboo Kumari @ Ruby Kumari
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 06.04.2026
Citation: 2026(3) PLJR 465
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner (husband): Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate
- For the Opposite Party (wife): Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate; Ms. Shubhra, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision against an order granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging both entitlement and quantum.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
