Partly allowed¶21

Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Aug 2025CR. REV./500/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: maintenance quantum reduction; downward revision of maintenance; Family Court Jamui; Maintenance Case No. 47(m) of 2018; criminal revision Patna High Court; husband-wife maintenance; joint family property; flour mill; oil expeller machine; paddy demising machine; Nawada; Jamui. Relevant to matters testing whether a maintenance award is excessive where the husband's income-yielding assets are claimed to be joint family properties.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance quantum reduced from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 5,300/- per month payable to OP No. 2 (Nitu Kumari); impugned Family Court order modified to this extent with the rest left unaltered; criminal revision petition disposed of and LCR directed to be sent back to the concerned Court for enforcement of the order as per law. ¶21

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month awarded to the wife (OP No. 2) by the Family Court, Jamui is on the higher side and should be reduced, given the petitioner's contention that the income-yielding properties (flour mill, oil expeller machine, paddy demising machine) are joint family properties of the petitioner, his parents and one younger brother.

¶17

Court's answer

The quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court appears to be on the higher side.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Payment of Rs. 5,300/- (Rupees five thousand and three hundred only) per month to the opposite party no. 2, namely Nitu Kumari, towards her maintenance would meet the ends of justice.

¶20

Key takeaways

The impugned order is modified to the extent that the quantum of maintenance would be Rs. 5,300/- per month; the rest of the judgment is not altered.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Jitendra Kumar, J.), Criminal Revision No. 500 of 2022, decided 04-08-2025: The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 28.03.2022 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case No. 47(m) of 2018, whereby he was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to his wife (OP No. 2, Nitu Kumari) towards maintenance from 22.03.2018. The sole grievance urged was the quantum, counsel for OP No. 2 maintaining that the maintenance matched the petitioner's income of Rs. 50,000/- per month from a flour mill, an oil expeller machine and a paddy demising machine, while the petitioner contended these were joint family properties of himself, his parents and one younger brother. Finding the quantum to be on the higher side, the Court reduced maintenance to Rs. 5,300/- per month, modified the impugned order to that extent leaving the remainder unaltered, disposed of the revision, and directed the LCR to be sent back for enforcement as per law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.500 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Mukesh Kumar Son of Om Prakash Saw Resident of Village- Pakribaraman (Warsaliganj), Near Devi Temple, P.O. And P.S.- Pakribaraman, DistrictNawada.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Nitu Kumari D/o Biranchi Sao, Resident of Village And P.O.- Mirjaganj, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Jamui.

¶9

... ... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Ms. Anisha Sinha, Advocate, AUIN- 102836 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

11 04-08-2025

¶13

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case No. 47(m) of 2018, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month to the wife / OP No. 2 herein towards her maintenance since the date of filing of the maintenance petition, i.e., 22.03.2018.

¶14

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has only

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.500 of 2022(11) dt.04-08-2025 2/3

¶17

grievance regarding quantum of maintenance. She submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance is on the higher side.

¶18

However, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the quantum of maintenance is as per the source of income of the petitioner who is having a flour mill, an oil expeller machine and a paddy demising machine having income of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month.

¶19

However, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the aforesaid properties are joint family properties, consisting of petitioner, his parents and one younger brother.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the quantum of maintenance appears to be on the higher side, and hence, payment of Rs. 5,300/(Rupees five thousand and three hundred only) per month to the opposite party no. 2, namely, Nitu Kumari towards her maintenance would meet the ends of justice.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is modified to this extent and the quantum of maintenance would be Rs. 5,300/- per month. Rest part of the judgment is not

¶22

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.500 of 2022(11) dt.04-08-2025 3/3

¶23

altered.

¶24