Case Background
The case arose from a marriage solemnized on 07.05.2009 between the husband (petitioner in the criminal revision) and the wife (opposite party) according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the wife went to her matrimonial home and started her married life there.
According to the wife’s version in her maintenance petition, soon after marriage, there was an additional demand for dowry. On non-fulfilment of this demand, she alleged that she was subjected to torture and cruelty by the husband.
The wife further stated that the husband is a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was drawing a monthly salary of about Rs. 50,000/-, while she had no independent income and was unable to maintain herself.
The wife filed Maintenance Case No. 29M of 2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura. On notice, the husband appeared and contested the case. He claimed that just seven days after marriage, the wife left the matrimonial home on her own, without any sufficient reason.
After she left, the husband filed a matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, registered as Matrimonial Case No. 199 of 2016. That case was decided ex-parte and decreed in favour of the husband.
Subsequently, the husband also obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce against the wife. The date of the divorce decree noted in the High Court judgment is 13.06.2019.
After considering the evidence, the Family Court found that the husband was a Constable in CRPF getting a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000/- at the time of the maintenance case. On 26.04.2019, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of filing of the maintenance petition.
Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2019 before the Patna High Court, challenging both the entitlement and the quantum of maintenance.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar, heard the criminal revision against the Family Court’s maintenance order. The key questions before the Court were whether the wife was entitled to maintenance at all, and if yes, whether Rs. 15,000/- per month was a reasonable amount in the facts of the case.
On the husband’s side, his counsel argued that the Family Court’s order was legally unsustainable. He pointed out that, on the Family Court’s own finding, the husband’s monthly salary at the relevant time was Rs. 30,000/-. Out of this, ordering Rs. 15,000/-—that is, half his salary—as maintenance to the wife was said to be contrary to legal principles governing maintenance. The husband further asserted that his parents were also dependent on him and had to be maintained from the same income.
The husband’s counsel also highlighted later developments. He submitted that after the maintenance order, the husband had obtained an ex-parte divorce on 13.06.2019. No appeal was filed by the wife against either the decree for restitution of conjugal rights or the decree of divorce. Thereafter, on 28.06.2020, the husband entered into a second marriage with another woman, and they now have a daughter, with a second child expected soon. On this basis, he argued that continuing to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the previous wife was neither legally maintainable nor practically feasible.
On the other side, the wife’s counsel defended the Family Court’s order. He argued that there was no illegality or infirmity in granting maintenance. He submitted that both the restitution decree and the divorce decree were passed ex-parte, without proper notice or knowledge of the wife. According to him, she was unaware of those proceedings, and therefore had not contested them.
He further stated that due to medical and financial problems, the wife could not file an appeal against the ex-parte decrees. Importantly, he argued that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not, by itself, a bar against awarding maintenance to the wife. In support of this argument, he relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Rina Kumari vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72.
The wife’s side maintained that she had initially joined the matrimonial home after marriage. However, due to additional demands for dowry and the cruelty that followed when these demands were not met, she had to leave and go back to her parental home (maike). She claimed that the restitution and divorce decrees were obtained behind her back, without proper service of notice.
The High Court carefully considered these rival submissions and examined the materials on record. The Court noted that certain basic facts were not in dispute: the marriage between the parties, and the husband’s salary at the time of filing the maintenance petition. The main dispute centered around whether the wife was living separately from the husband without reasonable cause, which, if true, could affect her right to maintenance.
According to the husband, the wife had left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason, and therefore she should not get maintenance, especially after an ex-parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour. However, the Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rina Kumari (supra).
Quoting extensively from paragraph 29 of that judgment, the High Court emphasized that the “preponderance of judicial thought” is in favour of upholding a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Supreme Court had held that merely passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife’s non-compliance with it, is not by itself enough to disqualify her from maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court had further clarified that each case must be decided on its own facts. The court must examine whether the wife has a valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, even in the face of such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule, and a restitution decree cannot automatically decide her right to maintenance or the applicability of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not a bar to granting maintenance if the Court is convinced that the wife is living separately for a valid reason. In the present case, from the record, it appeared that the wife was living at her parental home because of cruelty linked to non-fulfilment of additional dowry demands.
Therefore, the High Court accepted that the wife had a reasonable cause to live separately and was entitled to maintenance despite the ex-parte restitution and divorce decrees. On this core issue, the challenge of the husband failed.
However, when it came to the amount of maintenance, the Court took a different view from the Family Court. It noted that the husband’s undisputed salary at the time of filing the maintenance case was Rs. 30,000/- per month. Awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month—50% of his salary—to the wife was found to be excessive.
Taking into account that the husband’s income had increased with time, but also that his number of dependents had increased due to his second marriage and the birth of a daughter (with another child expected), the Court opted for a balanced approach.
The Patna High Court modified the Family Court’s order and reduced the maintenance to Rs. 9,500/- per month, payable by the husband to the wife from the date of filing of the maintenance petition. To keep pace with rising costs and changing circumstances, the Court directed that this amount would be subject to a 5% increment per annum from the date of the High Court judgment.
The Court clarified that after one year from the date of its judgment, the maintenance would increase by 5% of the existing amount, and this 5% yearly increase would continue every February. The maintenance would remain payable until the wife remarries.
On the question of arrears, the Court noted that during the pendency of the revision, the husband had made some payments. Even so, it directed the husband to pay the entire remaining arrear amount, after adjusting whatever he had already paid, within the next two months by bank draft.
The Court made it clear that if the arrears were not paid within this time, the failure would be treated as contempt of court and the husband would be dealt with accordingly.
With these directions, the criminal revision was disposed of. The matter was directed to be listed again on 18.04.2025 for reporting compliance regarding payment of arrears.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for separated wives, especially those facing dowry-related cruelty, who fear that a restitution of conjugal rights decree or even an ex-parte divorce may automatically cut off their right to maintenance.
The Patna High Court has clearly followed the Supreme Court’s line that a husband cannot simply rely on such decrees to deny maintenance. The real question is whether the wife has a valid reason to live separately, such as cruelty or dowry demands.
At the same time, the Court has shown that maintenance must be realistic. Fixing half of the husband’s salary as maintenance was considered excessive. The Court reduced it but added a 5% yearly increase to protect the wife against rising costs and inflation.
For families and lawyers in Bihar, this decision reinforces that maintenance is a lifeline for an abandoned or ill-treated wife, but it must also consider the paying spouse’s income and other dependents. The built-in yearly increase model used by the Patna High Court also shows a practical way to avoid repeated litigation just to enhance maintenance over time.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Does an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights and subsequent ex-parte divorce automatically disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance when she is living separately?
Answer: No. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rina Kumari vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto, the Patna High Court held that such decrees do not by themselves bar maintenance. The Court must see if the wife has valid and sufficient reasons, like cruelty or dowry demands, to live separately. In this case, the wife was found to be living separately for justified reasons and remained entitled to maintenance. - Issue: Was the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month, awarded as maintenance by the Family Court out of a Rs. 30,000/- monthly salary, reasonable and legally sustainable?
Answer: Partly no. The Patna High Court held that awarding half of the husband’s salary as maintenance was excessive in the facts of this case, particularly when his parents and, later, his second wife and child were also dependents. The maintenance was reduced to Rs. 9,500/- per month with a 5% yearly increment, payable from the date of the maintenance petition till the wife’s remarriage. - Issue: What directions should be given regarding arrears of maintenance during the pendency of the revision?
Answer: The Court directed the husband to clear all arrears of maintenance, after adjusting the amounts already paid, within two months by bank draft. It further warned that non-payment within the stipulated time would be treated as contempt of court.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Rina Kumari vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2019 (arising out of Maintenance Case No. 29M of 2017)
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar vs Nutan Devi
Citation: 2025 (3) PLJR 755
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Advocates:
For the petitioner (husband): Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate
For the opposite party (wife): Mr. Rambabu Yadav, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision against an order of maintenance passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura in a maintenance proceeding.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 18.02.2025
Family Court Order Challenged: Order dated 26.04.2019 in Maintenance Case No. 29M of 2017
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
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.
