Husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs. 12,000 monthly maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC, disputing the marriage's validity and pleading inability to pay. The court found he had earlier accepted her as his wife, had notice, and could afford one-third of his salary as maintenance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.412 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District-
======================================================
MUNNA PANDIT S/O Bhukhan Pandit, Resident of Village- Chitrasen, Police Station- Belhar, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER
6 12-02-2024
The instant Revision is directed against an order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Banka on 23rd January, 2019 in Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Case No. 86/2016 whereby and whereunder the trial court directed petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month within 10th of each succeeding month in favour of the opposite party no.2.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.412 of 2019(6) dt.12-02-2024 2/4
party no.2 most illegally and impropriety claimed himself as his wife. Therefore, she is not entitled to get an maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the impugned order is liable to be rejected.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.412 of 2019(6) dt.12-02-2024 3/4
ascertained that the opposite party was represented by Sri Ghanshyam Prasad Sinha, learned Advocate. The Opposite party no.2 has filed a supplementary affidavit this day annexing the copy of the summons received by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was prevented from contesting the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the trial court.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.412 of 2019(6) dt.12-02-2024 4/4
merits in the instant Revision, therefore, this Revision is
dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Guddu/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party was the legally wedded wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite the petitioner's claim of no valid marriage.
Whether Rs. 12,000 per month maintenance was excessive given the petitioner's income and other obligations.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Munna Pandit
The State Of Bihar
Fulkumari Devi
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
