Dismissed¶28

Digambar Thakur v. Poonam Thakur

Patna HC23 Jul 2025CR. REV./85/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance quantum revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dismissed by Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J); earning capability, not actual income, held to be the prime factor for fixing maintenance; able-bodied husband formerly earning Rs. 40,000/- p.m. cannot plead inability on daily wages of Rs. 10,000/- p.m.; Trial Court award of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. to wife and Rs. 4,000/- p.m. to minor child (total Rs. 10,000/- p.m.) upheld; affidavits of assets and liabilities per direction in Rajnish vs. Neha; Madhubani; M.R. Case No. 335 of 2013.

What did the court decide?

It is not the actual income of the husband but his capability to earn that is the prime factor on the basis of which the maintenance allowance ought to be determined. ¶27

Digambar Thakur Vs Poonam Thakur — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Trial Court (Rs. 10,000/- per month in total) should be revised on the ground that the petitioner lacks the financial capacity to pay, being allegedly unemployed and earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month as a daily wage earner.

¶18

Court's answer

It is not the actual income of the husband but his capability to earn that is the prime factor on the basis of which the maintenance allowance ought to be determined.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is an able-bodied person and, from his work experience, it is ascertained that he would have earned at least Rs. 40,000/- per month.

¶27

Key takeaways

Human conduct shows that a capable person runs after earning more, and no reasons were given for the petitioner going back to earning one-fourth of his former salary; his plea of reduced earnings therefore carries little weight.ratio¶24
The present-day market price and the bare minimum needs of a lady and child require a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to maintain themselves in a very humble way.ratio¶28
There is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial Court on the quantum of maintenance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) dismisses Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2024 challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. By order dated 18 September 2023 in M.R. Case No. 335 of 2013, the Trial Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to his wife (Opposite Party No. 1) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to his minor son (Opposite Party No. 2), totalling Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. The petitioner, who formerly earned Rs. 40,000/- per month with Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., pleaded unemployment and daily-wage earnings of Rs. 10,000/- per month, supported by affidavits of assets and liabilities filed per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish vs. Neha. The Court held that it is the capability to earn, not the actual income, that is the prime factor in fixing maintenance; an able-bodied person with such work experience would have earned at least Rs. 40,000/- per month; and present-day market prices require Rs. 10,000/- per month for the bare minimum upkeep of a lady and child. Finding no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment, the revision was dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.85 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Digambar Thakur, Son of Late Jibachh Thakur, Resident of VillageMaharajpur Dhatta Tole, P.S.-Kahjauli, District-Madhubani.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Poonam Thakur, D/O Ramakant Khan, Resident Of Village-Balani Mehath, P.S.-Bhairab Sthan, District-Madhubani

¶8

Shivam Kumar Thakur, Son Of Digambar Thakur, Resident Of VillageBalani Mehath, P.S.-Bhairab Sthan, District-Madhubani

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Anand, Advocate Mrs.Madhuri Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶13

7 23-07-2025

¶14

Petitioner is the husband of the Opposite Party No. 1

¶15

and father of the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶16

The Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which was registered as M.R. Case No. 335 of 2013, praying for maintenance for herself and her minor child from the petitioner. The said maintenance case was disposed of on the 18^th of September, 2023, directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/per month to the Opposite Party No. 2, total being Rs. 10,000/per month within first week of each succeeding month from the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.85 of 2024(7) dt.23-07-2025 2/4

¶18

date of filing of the application. It is also directed that the amount of maintenance shall be paid from the date of filing of the application. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of quantum of maintenance only on the ground that he does not have the financial capacity to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite parties.

¶19

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he used to work in a private company under the name and style of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Jhalabar and used to get Rs. 40,000/- per month towards his salary. However, he left the job on 15.2.2013 when the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. He is unemployed at present. He has been working as a daily wage earner and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Trial Court passed an order directing the entire income of the petitioner to be paid to the opposite parties. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there is a score in the instant revision to revise the amount of maintenance granted by the Trial Court in favour of the opposite parties.

¶20

Learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgement. It is stated by him that the petitioner used to earn Rs. 40,000/- per

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.85 of 2024(7) dt.23-07-2025 3/4

¶22

month. Therefore, he has the capability to earn adequate money to maintain the opposite parties. He is an able-bodied person. Therefore, he cannot refuse payment of maintenance allowance in favour of the opposite parties.

¶23

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits in reply that by a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has filed affidavits of assets and liabilities in terms of the direction made by the Hon’ble Supreme in Rajnish vs. Neha . In affidavits of assets and liabilities, he clearly stated that he earns Rs. 10,000/per month as daily wage earner. Moreover, the Opposite Party No. 1 earns Rs. 8,000/- per month by sewing work. The said fact has been denied by the Opposite Party No. 1.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record, this Court finds it curious as to why a person would leave the job when he used to earn Rs. 40,000/- for being a daily wage earner, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Human conduct and behaviour always show that person is capable of working and runs after earning more. No reasons have been subscribed as to why the petitioner went back to earn ¼ of the salary which he is received.

¶25

Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the

¶26

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.85 of 2024(7) dt.23-07-2025 4/4

¶27

petitioner is an able-bodied person, and from his work experience, it is ascertained that he would have earned at least Rs. 40,000/- per month. There are plethora of decisions where the Hon’ble Supreme and the Higher Courts held that it is not the actual income of the husband but his capability to earn that is the prime factor on the basis of which the maintenance allowance ought to be determined.

¶28

Considering such aspect of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement passed by the Trial Court. The present-day market price and the bare minimum needs of a lady and child required a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to maintain themselves in a very humble way. Therefore, the instant revision is dismissed.

¶29

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶30

uttam/-

¶31

Digambar Thakur v. Poonam Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Thakur v. Poonam Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Xxx (Priyanshu Kumar @ Murari Kumar) Vs The State of Bihar

Vivekanand Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Ravi Vs Puja Kumari

Meera Devi@ Mira Devi Vs Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Prasad Yadav

Reema Kumari @ Rima Devi Vs the State of Bihar