Dismissed¶36

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Dimpi Kumari

Patna HC8 Jul 2025CR. REV./471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 CrPC maintenance quantum; capacity to pay; wife's dignity and standard of living comparable to matrimonial home; doctor-husband's income (salary, clinic, pharma directorship); affidavit of assets and liabilities left uncontroverted; Hasin Jahan v. State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5452); Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801) para 80; equalisation-of-wealth caution; Family Court Patna; criminal revision dismissed; Trial Court order affirmed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Family Court order dated 01.03.2024 (maintenance Rs.35,000/- per month plus Rs.25,000/- per month towards arrears) is affirmed. ¶36

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Dimpi Kumari — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.471 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Kumar Kameshwar Singh R/o Mohalla - Shaktinagar, P.S. - Chhapra Muffasil, Distt. - Saran at Chhapra, Presently Residing at Mohalla - South Ganesh Nagar, Gali No. 1, House No. 1/65, Dr. Pandav Nagar, P.S.- Mandawali, Distt. - New Delhi

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dimpi Kumari D/o Ashok Kumar singh and W/o Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh R/o Mohalla - Shaktinagar, P.S. - Chhapra Muffasil, Distt. - Saran at Chhapra, at present Residing at vill and P.O. - Fatehpur, P.S. - Didarganj, Distt. - Patna

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, A.P.P. For the Opposite party : Ms. Akrity Aishwarya, Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶12

8 08-07-2025

¶13

The instant criminal revision is directed against an order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No.342(M) of 2017 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application. The Trial Court also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- per month towards arrear maintenance to the opposite party.

¶14

Marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party is not denied. It is also not denied that the petitioner and the opposite party are living separately and no maintenance is being paid to the opposite party by the petitioner.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2024(8) dt.08-07-2025 2/7

¶16

Indisputably, the petitioner is a medical professional working in a private hospital at Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Trial Court directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month since, 2017, i.e. from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. without considering the fact that in the year 2017 he earn Rs.38,500/- per month and in the year 2020 he used to earn Rs.60,000/- per month from his salary. At present his salary is increased to Rs.1,20,000/-.

¶17

Thus, it is contended on behalf of the opposite party that when the petitioner used to earn Rs.38,500/- in the year 2017 and Rs.60,000/- in the year 2020 how can it be possible for the petitioner to pay Rs.35,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance to his wife/opposite party. So far as petitioner’s capability to pay maintenance at the rate decided by the Trial Court at present is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, this Court fairly can hold that at present petitioner has got the monitory capacity to pay Rs.35,000/- per month to the opposite party/wife.

¶18

The learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party takes me to the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Trial Court at Page-12 of the certified copy of the said

¶19

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2024(8) dt.08-07-2025 3/7

¶20

judgment. The Trial Court observed as follows :-

¶21

“mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls lkf{k;ksa ds tks mDr c;ku vk;s gSa] mlls ;g Li’V :i ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd foi{kh vkosfndk dk Hkj.k iks’k.k djus esa l{ke gksrs gq, Hkh mldk Hkj.k iks’k.k djus esa mis{kk cjr jgk gSA D;ksafd foi{kh dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ rF; ;k lkexzh vfHkys[k ij ugha yk;k gS vkSj u gh foi{kh dh vksj ls ijhf{kr lkf{k;ksa ds c;kuksa esa ,slk dksbZ dFku vk;k gS fd vkosfndk dh viuh vk; dk Jksr gS ftlls og viuk Hkj.k iks’k.k djus esa l{ke gSA tcfd vkosfndk dh vksj ls ijhf{kr lkf{k;ksa ds c;kuksa esa ;g ckr vk;h gS fd foi{kh ,e0ch0ch0,l0 MkWDVj gS vkSj og fnYyh esa uflZax gkse esa ukSdjh djrk gS vkSj mls nks yk[k :i;s lSyjh feyrk gS vkSj ,d yk[k :i;s fDyfud ls dekrs gSaA ¼vkosfndk lk{kh la0&1 izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk&3½ foi{kh dks vkSj dksbZ ftEesnkfj;kWa Hkh ugha gS D;ksafd muds ekrk firk ukSdjh djrs Fks vkSj lsokfuo`fr ds ckn mUgsa isa”ku feyrk gS rFkk foi{kh ds HkkbZ fnYyh esa tkWc djrs gSaA vkosfndk ds mDr dFku dk deksos”k vU; vkosfndk lkf{k;ksa ds c;kuksa esa mDr rF; dks cy iznku djrk gSA ;gkWa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd bl okn esa foi{kh Lo;a us foi{kh lk{kh la[;k&3 ds :i esa fn;s c;ku esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og ,e0ch0ch0,l0 MkWDVj gS vkSj “kq:vkr esa eSDl gkWfLiVy esa 38]500@& :i;s FkhA vc esjh lSyjh 1]20]000@& :i;s gSA vc eSa ;”kksnk gkWfLiVy esa dk;Z dj jgk gwWaA esjk bUde VSDl fjVuZ gj eghus 10 izfr”kr dVrk gSA lk{kh dk dFku gS fd mlus yksu ij ,d xkM+h fy;k gSA izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 3 esa mlus nokbZ dEiuh lsfydkWu QkekZ [kksyus vkSj mldk funs”kd gksus dh ckr Lohdkj dh gSA foi{kh lk{kh la[;k 1 tks foi{kh ds firk gSa] us Hkh vius lk{; ds nkSjku ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls ,oa mldh iRuh dks isa”ku feyrk gSA ogha foi{kh lk{kh la[;k&2 tks foi{kh ds firk gSa] dk izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku dFku gS fd eSa fcgkj ljdkj esa esfMdy foHkkx esa ukSdjh djrk Fkk vkSj eq>s isa”ku feyrk gSA ml isa”ku ls esjk dke ugha pyrk gSA esjh iRuh Hkh Nijk vLirky esa esfMdy esa izkbZosV tkWc djrh FkhA esjk NksVk iq= Hkh ukSdjh djrk gSA vr% mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls ijhf{kr lkf{k;ksa ¼fo”ks’krk% foi{kh lkf{k;ksa ds vk;s

¶22

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2024(8) dt.08-07-2025 4/7

¶23

c;kuksa½ ds mDr c;kuksa ls ;g ckr Hkh lkfcr gksrh gS fd foi{kh vkosfndk dk Hkj.k iks’k.k djus esa l{ke gksrs gq, Hkh mudk Hkj.k iks’k.k djus esa mis{kk cjr jgk gSA”

¶24

Thus, it is found by the Trial Court that the petitioner is a medical professional, he works in a Nursing Home in Delhi and gets salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. He earns Rs.1,00,000/- from a clinic. The opposite party/husband himself deposed during trial of the case as OPW-3 he admitted that at the initial point of time when he started working as medical practitioner, he used to earn Rs.38,500/- per month from MAX Hospital, Delhi. His salary is increased to Rs.1,20,000/-. He has been presently working as Yasoda Hospital, Delhi. It is admitted by him that he is a Director of Pharmaceutical Company under the name and style of Silicon Pharma. The father of the petitioner deposed as OPW-1, in his deposition he admitted that he is a pension holder, he used to work in the Health Department of State of Bihar. His wife also used to work in Chhapra Hospital, Bihar. His younger son is also working. Therefore, the petitioner has no obligation to maintain any other person of his family.

¶25

In support of her contention, the opposite party submitted affidavit of assets and liabilities in the Trial Court but the petitioner did not file any affidavit of assets and liabilities to

¶26

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2024(8) dt.08-07-2025 5/7

¶27

counter the same. Therefore, the case of the opposite party was not controverted by the petitioner during trial of the case.

¶28

In a very recent judgment in the case of Hasin Jahan Vs. State of West Bengal and another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5452 , it is held by a Single Bench of the High Court at Calcutta that wife is entitled to live her life with same assets and dignity and she was living when there was conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party, as the husband and wife. The learned Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rinku Baheti Vs. Sandesh Sharda reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801 , which reflects in paragraph No.80 of the aforesaid judgment as hereunder:-

¶29

“80. We have serious reservations with the tendency of the parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse. However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself. But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of

¶30

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2024(8) dt.08-07-2025 6/7

¶31

the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse. The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual. The husband is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife. As per settled law, the wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing better in life post his separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal progress. We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?”

¶32

Coming to the instant case, this Court is of the view that a wife of a doctor, who earns more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month is entitled to a descent living.

¶33

Under such circumstances, an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance is not at all excessive and the petitioner is under obligation to pay the

¶34

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2024(8) dt.08-07-2025 7/7

¶35

said amount for proper, dignified and honorable living of the opposite party/wife.

¶36

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant criminal revision. The revisional application is thus, dismissed and order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No.342(M) of 2017 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is accordingly, affirmed.

¶37

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶38

mdrashid/-

¶39

U T

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Dimpi Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Dimpi Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bashisht Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Vineet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vineet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Laleshwar Yadav @ Lalo Yadav @ Lalu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Shailesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Pandit @ Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Mohan Vs Rinky Devi