Dismissed¶23

Vijay Patel v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Jan 2024CR. REV./463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Revision No. 463 of 2019 (decided 15-01-2024, Bibek Chaudhuri, J): revision dismissed against Maintenance Case No. 233-M2009 order of Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah awarding Rs. 2,000 p.m. to wife Ranjeeta Patel and Rs. 1,500 p.m. per child (total Rs. 5,000 p.m.) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; second-marriage defence not proved by oral evidence; allegation of second marriage justifies wife refusing cohabitation despite decree for restitution of conjugal rights; quantum not excessive though below minimum; no unilateral enhancement absent challenge by wife.

What did the court decide?

The plea that opposite party no. 2 had solemnised a second marriage was not established: nothing in the record states that she contracted a second marriage, and mere oral evidence of the allegation does not prove the fact.

Vijay Patel Vs The State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party no. 2 (the wife) is entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the petitioner/husband's allegation that she has solemnised a second marriage and is staying in Nepal. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

An allegation of second marriage made against a married lady is sufficient for her to refuse to stay with her husband.

¶21

Key takeaways

The maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month for the minor children is not excessive, though considering present market prices it is below the minimum.ratio¶22
Since opposite party no. 2 did not challenge the quantum of maintenance, the Court was not in a position to enhance the rate of maintenance unilaterally.ratio¶22
The impugned order contains no illegality or material irregularity, and accordingly the criminal revision is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance under S.125 Cr.P.C. — Criminal revision by husband against Family Court, West Champaran order directing payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month per child (total Rs. 5,000/-). Held, dismissing the revision: (i) the husband's plea that the wife had solemnised a second marriage was not proved — no record of such marriage and mere oral evidence of the allegation does not prove it; (ii) an allegation of second marriage against a married lady is itself sufficient for her to refuse to stay with her husband, so the decree for restitution of conjugal rights remaining uncomplied with did not disentitle her to maintenance; (iii) the amount fixed was not excessive though below minimum in view of present market prices, but the High Court could not enhance it unilaterally since the wife had not challenged the quantum; (iv) no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.463 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- West Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

VIJAY PATEL Son of Mukti Patel Resident of Village - Mangalpur, P.O. Behri, P.S.- Sikta, Distt - West Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Ranjeeta Patel D/o Rajendra Prasad Patel Resident of Village - Langri, P.S.Langri, Distt - Parsa (Nepal)

¶9

Ajay Prasad Son of Achhelal Prasad Ward No. 16, Pani Tanki, Near Birganj F.M. Distt - Parsa (Nepal).

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhagya Narayan Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 15-01-2024 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

¶14

The instant revision is directed against an order dated 12^th September, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah in a Maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which was registered in the trial court as Maintenance Case No. 233-M2009.

¶15

By passing the order impugned, learned Principal Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.463 of 2019(6) dt.15-01-2024 2/3

¶17

and Rs. 1500/- each for their two children, total being Rs.5,000/per month.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner/husband that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the case of the petitioner to the effect that the opposite party no.2 has already solemnized a second marriage and has been staying at Nepal. The petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit was decreed, but the opposite party no. 2 has not returned to his house. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner further that the petitioner is not unwilling to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month as decided by the court below, but if the opposite party no.2 being the wife of the petitioner re-married, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

¶19

I have gone through the impugned order, during trial of the case, the opposite party examined as many as five witnesses, though the petitioner stating in his evidence that he is ready to keep the petitioner and their children at his house. Nowhere it is stated that the opposite party no. 2 has solemnized the second marriage. Oral evidence of allegation of second marriage does not prove the said fact. Moreover, the allegation of second marriage to a married lady is sufficient for her to

¶20

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.463 of 2019(6) dt.15-01-2024 3/3

¶21

refuse to stay with her husband.

¶22

The learned trial Judge passed absolutely a meger amount of Rs.2,000/- for the maintenance of the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1500/- for the minor children of the parties. The amount of maintenance is not at all excessive, but considering the present market price this Court is of the view that the same is below minimum. However, since the opposite party no. 2 has not challenged the quantum of maintenance, I am not in a position to enhance the rate of maintenance unilaterally.

¶23

On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality and material irregularity and accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed.

¶24

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶25

pravinkumar/-

¶26

U T

Vijay Patel v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Patel v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamanna Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Kumar Abhishek Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Karim @ Kanha @ Md. Kalim @ Md. Mannan Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shamshad @ Samshad Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajdev Prasad Vs The State of Bihar And Anr.

Satyendra Rai Vs the State of Bihar