Allowed¶23

Abdul Mannan @ Munna @ Md. Munna v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC29 Jul 2025CR. REV./706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; striking off defence; refusal of opposite party's affidavit evidence; Family Court Bhagalpur; Maintenance Case No. 147 of 2014; evidence closed 10.01.2024; cost Rs. 20,000/-; Patna High Court Criminal Revision No.706 of 2024; Bibek Chaudhuri, J.; 29-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed: the Family Court's order refusing to accept the revision petitioner's evidence was set aside; he was permitted to adduce evidence on payment of Rs. 20,000/- cost to Opposite Party No. 2 within 15 days; and the trial court was directed to endeavour to dispose of the case within 3 months. ¶23

Abdul Mannan @ Munna @ Md. Munna Vs The State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the defence of the opposite party can be struck off for non-payment of interim maintenance.

¶15

Court's answer

There is no provision in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that for non-payment of interim maintenance, the evidence of the opposite party / husband filed on affidavit would be refused.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Refusal of recording evidence of the opposite party means striking out of defence of the opposite party / husband.

¶20

Key takeaways

Since there is no statutory provision for striking out the defence for non-payment of interim maintenance, the order of refusal of accepting the petitioner's evidence is set aside.ratio¶20
The petitioner is permitted to adduce his evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable to Opposite Party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of the order; on payment of such money he shall be allowed to adduce his evidence.ratio¶21
Since the maintenance case is pending from 2014 and ten years have already lapsed, the learned Trial Judge shall take all endeavours to dispose of it within 3 months from the date of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), Criminal Revision No.706 of 2024, decided 29-07-2025: Held that there is no provision in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. under which the evidence of the opposite party/husband filed on affidavit may be refused for non-payment of interim maintenance; refusal of recording such evidence amounts to striking out the defence, and since no statutory provision sanctions striking out the defence on that ground, the Family Court, Bhagalpur's order refusing acceptance of evidence in Maintenance Case No. 147 of 2014 (testimony refused by order dated 03.03.2020; evidence recalled on cost of Rs. 2,500/- and finally closed on 10.01.2024 on default) was set aside. The revision petitioner was permitted to adduce his evidence subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- cost to Opposite Party No. 2 within 15 days, and the trial court was directed to endeavour to dispose of the decade-old case within three months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.706 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Abdul Mannan @ Munna @ Md. Munna, S/O Md. Mustak R/O Village - Amdanda, P.S. - Amdanda, Dist. - Bhagalpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Bibi Zinnat Ara W/O Abdul Mannan @ Munna, D/O Md. Abbas R/O Village- Mangachak, P.S- Sanhoula, Dist.- Bhagalpur.

¶9

Md. Imran S/O Abdul Mannan @ Munna R/o Village- Amdanda, P.SAmdanda, Distt.- Bhagalpur.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate Md. Nursut Hoda, Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 29-07-2025

¶14

A very short question is involved in the instant

¶15

criminal revision, viz, whether the defence of the opposite party can be struck off for non-payment of interim maintenance.

¶16

It is needless to say that while disposing of Maintenance Case No. 147 of 2014, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Bhagalpur, in paragraph 10 of his judgement, recorded as hereunder:-

¶17

“The testimony of opposite party Abdul Mannan @ Munna has been filed on the record on affidavit but vide order dated 03.03.2020 his testimony was refused to be taken on the record for his

¶18

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.706 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025 2/3

¶19

deliberate inaction in making payment of interim maintenance so allowed to petitioner. On the perusal of said order it transpires that the opposite party has refused to make any payment to petitioner and therefore the affidavit of testimony so filed on his behalf has been refused by the then Leaned Court to be taken on the record. The perusal of order sheet further reveals that subsequently on the petition of opposite party his evidence was recalled and was allowed to produce all his evidence within the period of 60 days on the payment of the cost of Rs. 2,500/(Rs. Two thousand five hundred) to petitioner, however, on his failure to pay cost and to produce evidence the evidence of opposite party was again closed on 10.01.2024 and therefore in the result no evidence from the side of opposite party could come on the record.”

¶20

There is no provision in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that for non-payment of interim maintenance, the evidence of the opposite party / husband filed on affidavit would be refused. Refusal of recording evidence of the opposite party means striking out of defence of the opposite party / husband. Since there is no statutory provision for striking out defence of the petitioner for non-payment of interim maintenance, the order of refusal of accepting evidence of the petitioner is set aside.

¶21

The petitioner is permitted to adduce his evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable to the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.706 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025 3/3

¶23

Opposite Party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of this order. On payment of such money, the original opposite party / petitioner herein shall be allowed to adduce his evidence.

¶24

Since the case is pending from 2014 and 10 years have already been lapsed, the learned Trial Judge shall take all endeavour to dispose of within 3 months from the date of this order.

¶25

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶26

uttam/-

¶27

Abdul Mannan @ Munna @ Md. Munna v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Mannan @ Munna @ Md. Munna 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Gaurav Vs the State of Bihar

Seema Verma Vs The State of Bihar

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

Ranjan Prasad Srivastava Vs The State of Bihar

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar Vs Puja Kumari

Md. Murshid Alam Vs The State of Bihar