Dismissed¶29

Jitendra Kumar v. Anita Kumari

Patna HC18 Jun 2025CR. REV./373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; criminal revision dismissed on contest; Family Court Sitamarhi order dated 12-03-2024 upheld (Rs.16,000/- p.m. from March 2020, MCase No.40/2020); revision filed under Ss.397/401 CrPC; Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.236 of 2018 under S.498A IPC left uncompounded; rejected lump-sum alternative of Rs.30,00,000/- fixed deposit yielding Rs.17,150/- p.m.; no illegality or material irregularity; no grievance on quantum; Patna High Court, decision 18-06-2025, single judge Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the trial court's maintenance direction of Rs. 16,000/- per month stands upheld; revision dismissed on contest with no order as to costs. ¶29

Jitendra Kumar Vs Anita Kumari — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the trial court's maintenance direction of Rs. 16,000/- per month stands upheld; revision dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision directed against the order dated 12th March 2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Sitamarhi, awarding Rs. 16,000/- per month maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Maintenance Case No. 40 of 2020), should succeed. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

With the marriage undisputed, the opposite party having no source of income and the petitioner having independent means, and considering the necessary ingredients of Section 125 CrPC, this Court found the trial court committed no illegality or material irregularity in passing the maintenance order.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

There is absolutely no grievance of the petitioner with regard to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court.

¶28

Key takeaways

Finding no merit in the instant criminal revision, the single judge dismissed it on contest, with no order as to costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No.373 of 2024 (Patna High Court, Bibek Chaudhuri, J, oral order dated 18-06-2025) dismissing on contest the revision, filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, against the order dated 12th March 2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi (Maintenance Case No. 40 of 2020 under Section 125 CrPC), which directs petitioner-husband Jitendra Kumar to pay respondent-wife Anita Kumari maintenance of Rs. 16,000/- per month from March 2020. The marriage (solemnized 05.03.2017) was undisputed; the wife, staying at her paternal home without any source of income, had sought Rs. 20,000/- p.m., alleging the husband earns Rs. 60,000/- p.m. as salary and Rs. 5,00,000/- p.a. from other sources. At hearing the petitioner offered Rs. 30,00,000/- lump sum in a nationalised-bank fixed deposit yielding Rs. 17,150/- p.m. interest as superseding the monthly award; the respondent declined because acceptance would require compounding the pending Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 236 of 2018 under Section 498A IPC and other penal provisions. Weighing the ingredients of Section 125 CrPC, the Court found no illegality or material irregularity in the trial court order and no grievance on quantum, and dismissed the revision with no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.373 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Jitendra Kumar son of Ram Ekwal Hathi Village- Fatehpur tole- Kshmipur W.No-7, Ps- Sonbarsa Dist- Sitamarhi, A/p- Working at GS JE Civil 94 RCC 56 APO Udaypur H.P, P/A- DGBR Sima Sarak Bhawan Ring Road Delhi camp Delhi

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anita Kumari wife of Jitendra Kumar D/o- Ramchandra Mahto VillageJingarwa PS- Malangawa Dist- Sarlahi Nepal A/P- Ram Sundar Sah Behind Prabhash Petrol Pump w.No-1, PS Dist- District

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate Ms.Madhubala Verma, Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶13

9 18-06-2025

¶14

The instant revision is directed against an order dated 12^th March 2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Sitamarhi upon an application under Section 125 of the CrPC which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 40 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the petitioner/husband was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance case, i.e., March, 2020.

¶15

On perusal of the application under Section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC as well as impugned judgment, it is found that marriage between the parties was not in dispute. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 05^th

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.373 of 2024(9) dt.18-06-2025 2/5

¶17

March, 2017. It is alleged by the petitioner that after marriage she went to her matrimonial home she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Her husband had illicit relation with the wife of his brother. The husband and other matrimonial relations tried to commit murder of the opposite party when she was preparing tea on a gas oven. On 16^th December, 2018, she lodged a complaint in Sonbarsa P.S. which was registered as Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 236 of 2018 under Section 498A and other penal provisions against her husband and other matrimonial relations. Subsequently, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. It is alleged by the opposite party in her petition under Section 125 of the CrPC that her husband earns Rs. 60,000/- per month from his salary. He has also other source of income from which he earns Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. The opposite party, on the other hand, has no source of income, she is fully dependent upon her parents, therefore, the opposite party prayed for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself.

¶18

The present petitioner contested the said application under Section 125 of the CrPC by filing a written statement wherein she has denied entire allegation made out by the opposite party in her petition under Section 125 of the CrPC. It

¶19

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.373 of 2024(9) dt.18-06-2025 3/5

¶20

is specifically submitted by the present petitioner that the opposite party is a lady of suspicious nature and character. She even raised doubt about opposite party’s relations with his sister-in-law. Since the date of marriage, the wife of the petitioner turned the peaceful house of the petitioner to hell. She used to raise doubt against everyone and left her matrimonial home voluntarily. After a lapse of about eight years, she is now claiming to come back to her matrimonial home as a part of settlement of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner does not want the opposite party to return to his house because he had already experienced the nature of his wife and he is afraid of staying with her.

¶21

At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the trial court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per month. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to his wife and if the said sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- is kept in a nationalized Bank in Fixed Deposit, the opposite party will get Rs. 17, 150/- per month towards interest. Therefore, she would get more than what has been directed by the trial court to pay the opposite party by the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

¶23

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.373 of 2024(9) dt.18-06-2025 4/5

¶24

the opposite party has not accepted such proposal on the ground that if such proposal is accepted, the opposite party will have to compound/compromise the case under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner. The opposite party does not want to compound the criminal case pending against the petitioner and others.

¶25

In reply, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that if the petitioner is convicted in a case under Section 498A of the IPC, he will loose his job and in that event he will not be in a position to pay any maintenance allowance. However, the opposite party does not wish to bend even an inch from her stand.

¶26

In view of such circumstances, let me now decide the case on merit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally married husband of the opposite party. The opposite party is now staying at her paternal home. She does not has any source of income, on the other hand, the petitioner has independent source of income and he can maintain his wife. Considering such circumstances and necessary ingredients of the provision under Section 125 of the CrPC, this Court finds that the trial court did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in passing the order of maintenance and there is

¶27

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.373 of 2024(9) dt.18-06-2025 5/5

¶28

absolutely no grievance of the petitioner with regard to the quantum of maintenance also.

¶29

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the instant criminal revision and accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on contest. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶30

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶31

Suraj Dubey/-

¶32

U T

Jitendra Kumar v. Anita Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar v. Anita Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jabi Tara Devi Vs Laxmi Prasad Nayak

Ajay Kumar Vs Sangita Sinha

Prabhakar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rajnish Raman Vs The State of Bihar

Saddam Hussain Vs The State of Bihar