Dismissed¶32

Md. Murshid Alam v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC29 Jul 2025CR. REV./711/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; revision under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act; Patna High Court CR. REV. No.711 of 2024, decided 29-07-2025 by Bibek Chaudhuri, J.; Family Court, Madhubani, M.R. Case No. 362 of 2019; ex-parte disposal despite service of notice; petitioner claimed salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month as optical shop employee, wife claimed he earned Rs. 48,000/- to 50,000/- per month as owner; salary slips produced only in revision; quantum upheld at Rs. 8,000/- per month for wife plus Rs. 3,000/- per month per child (total Rs. 14,000/- per month); no illegality or material irregularity found; income dispute left for final hearing; revision dismissed, impugned order affirmed.

What did the court decide?

No ground of illegality or material irregularity of the impugned order was submitted by the petitioner. ¶24

Md. Murshid Alam Vs The State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.711 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Md. Murshid Alam S/O Md. Salauddin Resident of Village- Sibotar Tola Sarkari, P.S.- Sakari, District- Madhubani.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Ruby Parween W/O Md. Murshid R/O Village- Sakri, P.S- Sakri, Distt.Madhubani, at present D/O Md. ustaque of Village- Nagwara, P.S- Katre, Dist.- Muzaffarpr (Bihar).

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Jubair Ansari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Karna, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶12

8 29-07-2025

¶13

The instant revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is directed against an order, dated 26th of April, 2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as M. R. Case No. 362 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the Trial Court granted interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month for the Opposite Party No. 2 and at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- each for two children, total being 6,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per month.

¶14

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.711 of 2024(8) dt.29-07-2025 2/4

¶15

It is not in dispute that the Opposite Party No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner. In the wedlock between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2, she gave birth to two children. They are now residing with their mother.

¶16

It appears that from the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record that the petitioner refuses and neglects to maintain his wife and children.

¶17

It is contended on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 that the petitioner is the owner of an optical shop at Madhubani and he earns Rs. 48,000/- to 50,000/- per month.

¶18

On the other hand, the petitioner submits that he

¶19

is an employee of an optical shop and earns Rs. 7,500/- per month towards his salary.

¶20

Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the Opposite Parties and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the application for interim maintenance was disposed of ex-parte because of the fact that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not turn up.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.711 of 2024(8) dt.29-07-2025 3/4

¶22

In the said application, supported by affidavit, the Opposite Party/wife stated that her husband earns Rs. 48,000/ to 50,000/- per month as owner of an optical shop. No contrary evidence was filed by the petitioner in the Trial Court in support of his claim that he earns Rs. 7,500/- per month.

¶23

In this revision, the petitioner filed three salary slips of Rs. 7,500/- per month each. The said salary slips were not filed during the hearing of the petition for interim maintenance. The said petition was disposed of ex-parte.

¶24

The petitioner could not submit any ground of illegality or material irregularity of the impugned order. The dispute relating to the income of the petitioner can only be ascertained and decided at the time of final hearing of the case.

¶25

Considering the amount of interim maintenance granted in favour of the Opposite Parties, this Court finds that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- is absolutely necessary for day to day expenditure of a lady. In order to have crumbs of bread and spoon-full of milk, the amount granted by the Trial Court towards interim maintenance in favour of

¶26

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.711 of 2024(8) dt.29-07-2025 4/4

¶27

Opposite Party No. 2 and her two children does not seem to be excessive, illogical and irrelevant.

¶28