Vijay Tiwary v. Sandhya Devi

Patna HC25 Jul 2025C.Misc./2086/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vijay Tiwary v. Sandhya Devi; Patna High Court; C.Misc. No. 2086 of 2017; decided 25-07-2025; Arun Kumar Jha, J; cost of litigation in matrimonial (divorce) case; Family Court East Champaran at Motihari; Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 238 of 2013; Rs. 10,000/- lump sum litigation cost; maintenance Rs. 750/- per month; Cr. Misc. No. 9061 of 2014; order dated 29.04.2014; plea of poverty; inability to pay; impugned order affirmed; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The only challenge to the impugned order was the petitioner's plea of poverty; the learned trial court, after considering the precarious condition of the respondent wife, passed the order, which could not be assailed. ¶16

Vijay Tiwary Vs Sandhya Devi — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2086 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Vijay Tiwary, Son of Late Baban Tiwary, resident of village-Sirni Nayaka Tola, P.O.-Sirni, Police Station-Malahi, District- East Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sandhya Devi, wife of Vijay Tiwary, daughter of Veer Bahadur Pandey, resident of village+P.O.-Bhatwalia, Police Station-Sangrampur, District-East Champaran.

¶7

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shamir Mehra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 25-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

¶11

08.09.2017 passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 238 of 2013 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- to his respondent wife in lump sum to meet the cost of litigation.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor person and he is not in a position to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent wife. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been making

¶13

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2086 of 2017(3) dt.25-07-2025 2/2

¶14

payment of Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance in terms of order dated 29.04.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9061 of 2014 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not correct and the same be set aside.

¶15

Perused the record.

¶16

Perusal of record shows only challenge to the order dated 08.09.2017 passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 238 of 2013 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari is on the ground that the petitioner is a poor person and he is not in a position to make payment, the petitioner husband filed the case for dissolution of marriage and the learned trial court after considering the precarious condition of the respondent wife passed the order which could not be assailed. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is affirmed.

¶17

Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

¶18

dismissed.

¶19

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶20

balmukund/-

¶21

Vijay Tiwary v. Sandhya Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Tiwary v. Sandhya Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munglal Sao and Anr. Vs Girish Chandra Prasad and Ors.

In The Goods Of Late Ramcharitra Rai Vs Manoj Prasad

M. L. Sureka Vs Diwa Kant Mishra and Ors.

Varsha Kumari @ Rinki Kumari Vs Sandeep Ranjan @ Mausam Kumar

Suryanaran Jha Vs Nand Kishor Choudhary and Ors.

Jagdish Jha Vs Gita Devi and Ors.