Dismissed

Ramesh Yadav v. Manorama Devi

Patna HC13 Jan 2023CR. REV./61/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging a maintenance order. The court rejected the claim that the wife refused cohabitation without sufficient reason due to the petitioner's bigamy, upheld the maintenance claim, and directed the petitioner to clear arrears and pay litigation costs.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; Principal Judge directed recovery of maintenance arrears; Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- litigation cost within one month.

Ramesh Yadav Vs Manorama Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.61 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ramesh Yadav S/o Daroga Yadav, R/o Village- Janpur, P.S.- Barun, DistrictAurangabad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manorama Devi W/o Ramesh Yadav, D/o Late Rambriksh Yadav, R/o village Bakan, P.S.- Feshar, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 13-01-2023

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶13

the petitioner/revisionist.

¶14

The present criminal revision is being preferred having aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Maintenance Case No. 172 of 2012 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder, petition of maintenance was allowed as filed by opposite party, namely, Manorama Devi/wife of petitioner for a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) on monthly basis from the date of filing of petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist submitted that the petitioner was deserted willfully by opposite party/wife, as she is living with her parents since 17.12.2012. It

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.61 of 2017(2) dt.161-23-01-2023 2/4

¶17

is submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and there is no such evidence surfaced during the course of trial, which may suggest that he is holder of 89.75 decimal of land and earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month from his agricultural activities, as claimed by opposite party.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/revisionist further submitted that without any finding, as regard to source of income of this petitioner, the monthly maintenance amount was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, which is bad in eyes of law, where petitioner/revisionist is not at fault. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/revisionist submitted that opposite party/wife is not entitled for any maintenance in view of provisions as laid down u/s 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶19

It is appropriate to reproduce Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. for better understanding, of law which is as under :-

¶20

“No wife shall be entitled to receive an (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,) from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”

¶21

From the impugned judgment, it appears that

¶22

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.61 of 2017(2) dt.161-23-01-2023 3/4

¶23

opposite party/wife was ousted from her matrimonial home by petitioner/revisionist forcefully for the reason, as he solemnized another marriage without getting marriage dissolved with opposite party/wife under due process of law and in her lifetime.

¶24

An F.I.R. (exhibit 1) for the said occurrence was also lodged, where after investigation, police found this case true and also found allegation of second marriage true, where chargesheet was submitted through exhibit 1/1, as appears through impugned order.

¶25

It is an admitted position that no maintenance amount ever paid by this petitioner/revisionist in furtherance of the impugned order, where, only a meager amount of Rs. 3,000/per month, was allowed as monthly maintenance.

¶26

In view of above, it can be safely said that opposite party/wife has sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband and as such petitioner has no reason to take shelter of provision as available u/S 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) is also appearing very meager amount, where admittedly not a single farthing was paid by this petitioner, to opposite party.

¶27

Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶28

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad

¶29

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.61 of 2017(2) dt.161-23-01-2023 4/4

¶30

shall proceed to recover the amount and get it paid to the wife as early as possible in accordance with law.

¶31

Since the petitioner has not paid a single farthing to the opposite party in last six years in the name of pending litigation, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation, within one month from the date of order.

¶32

If the amount as directed above for litigation cost is not paid, the same shall be realized by the learned court below also through due process of law at earliest.

¶33

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶34

S.Tripathi/-

¶35

U T

Ramesh Yadav v. Manorama Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yadav v. Manorama Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar @ Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Chaubey Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Harijan @ Das @ Pradeep Das Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gulshan Kumar @ Swaraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Aniket Kumar @ Shiv Kumar @ Ankit Kumar @ Shivam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar