Dismissed¶10

Seema Verma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC28 Jul 2025CR. REV./636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance enhancement; one-fourth (25%) of net salary benchmark; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, A.I.R. 2017 SC 238; Family Court Patna Maintenance Case No. 48 (M) of 2021; B.H.E.L. employee salary Rs. 1,86,055/- p.m.; interim maintenance Rs. 45,000/- p.m.; anticipatory bail condition Crl. Misc. Case No. 15497 of 2023 dated 28.07.2023; ex parte hearing; impugned order affirmed; criminal revision dismissed on contest; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for enhancement was rejected and the trial court's maintenance order stands affirmed, with no order as to costs. ¶10

Seema Verma Vs The State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for enhancement was rejected and the trial court's maintenance order stands affirmed, with no order as to costs.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance fixed by the trial court (totalling Rs. 39,000/- per month) ought to be enhanced, the petitioners alleging that the opposite party no. 2 works on a high post in B.H.E.L., earns Rs. 1,86,055/- per month, and seeking Rs. 90,000/- per month. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Adopting the benchmark applied in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury that ¼ of the net salary is the sufficient and proper amount of maintenance where the claimants have not come forward with a specific case of liability, the Court measures the award against that standard.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Rs. 39,000/- per month is more than 25% of the opposite party's monthly earnings of Rs. 1,86,055/-; the maintenance awarded therefore satisfies the ¼-of-net-salary benchmark and the prayer for enhancement fails.

¶7

Key takeaways

Considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order.ratio¶8
The impugned order is affirmed; the criminal revision is dismissed on contest, with no order as to costs.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance — Enhancement under Section 125 Cr.P.C. — High Court of Judicature at Patna, Bibek Chaudhuri, J., oral order dated 28-07-2025 in CR. REV. No.636 of 2024 — Heard ex parte, opposite party no. 2 not appearing despite notice and no Vakalatnama filed. Trial court (Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, Maintenance Case No. 48 (M) of 2021, order dated 15.02.2024) awarded Rs. 21,000/- p.m. to petitioner no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 9,000/- p.m. each to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 (daughters), totalling Rs. 39,000/- p.m. Petitioners sought enhancement to Rs. 90,000/- p.m., alleging the opposite party holds a high post in B.H.E.L. and earns Rs. 1,86,055/- p.m.; interim maintenance had been Rs. 45,000/- p.m., a figure also reflected in the anticipatory bail order dated 28.07.2023 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 15497 of 2023, and counsel objected that the final order cut the amount by Rs. 6,000/-. Counsel frankly admitted no documents were produced on educational expenditure and no specific plea of need according to status was made. Applying the Supreme Court benchmark in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 238) that ¼ of net salary is sufficient and proper maintenance where no specific case of liability is made out, the Court held Rs. 39,000/- is more than 25% of Rs. 1,86,055/-, found no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, affirmed it, and dismissed the revision on contest with no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.636 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Seema Verma W/o Raj Kishor Kumar, D/o Rambharat Mahto R/o Murcha Road, P.s. - Chowk, P.O. - Begampur, Distt. - Patna

¶5

Vaishanvi D/o Raj Kishore Kumar R/o Murcha Road, P.s. - Chowk, P.O. - Begampur, Distt. - Patna

¶6

Shivansi D/o Raj Kishor Kumar R/o Murcha Road, P.s. - Chowk, P.O. - Begampur, Distt. - Patna

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

Raj Kishor Kumar S/o Late Ram Raj Singh R/o Ramnagar, Kochatoli, Nakum, P.S. - Nakum, Distt. - Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶14

4 28-07-2025

¶15

In spite of service of notice, opposite party no. 2. fails to appear before this Court. No Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, the instant criminal revision is taken up for hearing ex-parte.

¶16

The petitioners filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna in Maintenance Case No. 48 (M) of 2021. The said application was disposed of by the trial court on 15^th February, 2024, directing the opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 21,000/- per month to petitioner

¶17

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.636 of 2024(4) dt.28-07-2025 2/4

¶18

no. 1 and Rs. 9,000/- each per month to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Thus, total amount of maintenance comes to Rs. 39.000/- per month, which the opposite party no. 2 was directed to pay. The petitioners have prayed for enhancement of the amount of maintenance on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 is working on a high post in B.H.E.L. and he earns Rs. 1,86,055/per month. Therefore, the petitioners prays for enhancement of maintenance, challenging the order passed by the trial court.

¶19

It is pertinent to note that in the revisional application, the petitioners did not state the amount of money which they want towards enhancement amount of maintenance. On being asked, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners want Rs. 90,000/- per months towards maintenance as the opposite party earns Rs. 1,86,055/- per month. Thus, Rs. 90,000/- comes to about 50% of the opposite party’s salary.

¶20

On being asked, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that during interim stage of the proceeding for maintenance, the trial court granted Rs. 45,000/per month to the petitioners. The said amount should at least be provided to the petitioners. He has also filed a copy of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 15497 of 2023, passed by a

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.636 of 2024(4) dt.28-07-2025 3/4

¶22

Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28^th July, 2023, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that he would go on paying Rs. 45,000/- towards interim maintenance.

¶23

Learned Advocate for the petitioners has criticized the final order of maintenance on the ground that the final order reduced the amount of maintenance by Rs. 6,000/- from the interim maintenance.

¶24

It is frankly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that during trial, the petitioners did not produce any document with regard to academic expenditure incurred by petitioner no. 1 for the education of her two minor children. Thus, documents and specific plea regarding the petitioners need according to her status, the Court is not in a position to take into consideration the liabilities of the petitioners and direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance as per the need of the petitioners.

¶25

On the other hand, this Court considers the Judgment of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in A.I.R. 2017 SC 238 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ¼ of the net salary is the sufficient and proper amount of maintenance for the petitioners where the petitioners did not come forward with their specific

¶26

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.636 of 2024(4) dt.28-07-2025 4/4

¶27

case of liability. Rs. 39,000/- is more than 25% of Rs. 1,86,055/-.

¶28

Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, considering the evidence on record both oral and documentary, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed.

¶30

The instant criminal revision is dismissed on

¶31

contest.

¶32

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶34

pravinkumar/-

Seema Verma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Verma v. The State of Bihar

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

Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar

Bhupendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jaju Kumar Singhal Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Gaurav Vs the State of Bihar

Krishna Manjhi @ Bhola Manjhi @ Triloki Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Anwar Alam Vs Gudiya Khatoon