Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jan 2026CR. REV./69/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; Section 125 Cr.PC; Proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.PC; ex-parte maintenance order; withdrawal of criminal revision; Family Court Saharsa; Misc. Case No. 53 of 2016; CR. REV. No.69 of 2020; Patna High Court; Jitendra Kumar J.; conditional permission to withdraw; payment of half maintenance amount on setting aside ex-parte order; reconciliation between husband and wife; Rs. 5,000/- per month maintenance; LCR return.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the revision petition, conditional on the petitioner paying half of the total maintenance amount in terms of the impugned order at the time of setting aside the ex-parte order, if no compromise exists between the parties; LCR directed to be sent back with a copy of the order. ¶¶28

Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the criminal revision petition and instead seek setting aside of the ex-parte maintenance order by application under Proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.PC before the court below, and on what conditions.

¶¶23

Court's answer

Permission is granted to the petitioner to withdraw the present petition, subject to the condition that if there is no compromise already entered into between the parties, the court below shall consider and entertain the petitioner's application under Proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.PC.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

As a further condition, at the time of setting aside the impugned order and proceeding further, the petitioner will be required to pay half of the total maintenance amount in terms of the impugned order, by which he was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the private opposite parties.

¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court disposed of a criminal revision filed for setting aside an ex-parte final maintenance order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No. 53 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.PC, whereby the petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife and two minor children. The ex-parte order had been passed after the wife and children resumed living with the petitioner following reconciliation, and he could not file his reply or adduce evidence. Permission to withdraw the petition was granted subject to conditions: if no compromise exists between the parties, the court below shall consider and entertain an application under Proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.PC, and at the time of setting aside the impugned order the petitioner must pay half of the total maintenance amount. LCR was directed to be returned with a copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.69 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar Son of Shyam Sundar Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Bariyahi, P.S.- Bangaon, District - Saharsa.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Rinku Devi Wife of Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar Resident of Village - Bariyahi, P.S.- Bangaon District - Saharsa Presently Residing at Maharatha, P.S.- Saharsa, District - Saharsa

¶9

Rishabh Kumar Son of Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar Through its mother Rinku Devi, Resident of Village - Bariyahi, P.S.- Bangaon District - Saharsa Presently Residing at Maharatha, P.S.- Saharsa, District - Saharsa

¶10

Rishu Kumari Daughter of Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar Through its mother Rinku Devi, Resident of Village - Bariyahi, P.S.- Bangaon District - Saharsa Presently Residing at Maharatha, P.S.- Saharsa, District - Saharsa

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate For the State : Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

7 16-01-2026 The case is at the stage of Admission.

¶17

2. The present petition has been filed for setting aside

¶18

the ex-parte final maintenance order dated 15.10.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No. 53 of 2016, filed under Section 125 Cr.PC.

¶19

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 and her two minor children, who are O.P. Nos. 3 & 4, had filed the said Misc. Case for monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from the petitioner herein, who is husband of O.P. No. 2 herein and father of O.P. Nos. 3 & 4.

¶20

4. As per the impugned order, it transpires that

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.69 of 2020(7) dt.16-01-2026 2/3

¶22

initially, the petitioner herein appeared in the case on notice before the Family Court and after some time, on account of reconciliation, the O.P. No. 2 along with her minor children started living with the petitioner herein and he was under impression that the case would get terminated. However, the case proceeded and order was passed ex-parte and the petitioner could not file his reply to the maintenance petition, nor could he adduce any evidence in support of his defence against the maintenance petition.

¶23

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw the present petition and file appropriate application under Proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.PC for setting aside the ex-parte order. The petitioner is also ready to pay half of the maintenance amount in terms of the impugned order at the time of setting aside the impugned order and proceeding further giving opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply and evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses of O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶24

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the last two years, he is not in contact with the petitioner herein and he is not in a position to say whether there is any compromise between the parties and they are living

¶25

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.69 of 2020(7) dt.16-01-2026 3/3

¶26

together or not. He is also seeking liberty that in case the parties have already entered into settlement and living together, there should be provision that he will be not required to pay any amount towards maintenance.

¶27

7. Hence, permission is granted to the petitioner to withdraw the present petition, subject to condition that if there is no compromise already entered into between the parties, learned Court below will consider the application of the petitioner, if filed under Proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.PC, and will be entertained and at the time of setting aside the impugned order for proceeding further, the petitioner will be required to pay half of the total maintenance amount in terms of impugned order as per which the petitioner herein has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the private opposite parties towards their maintenance.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed

¶29

of.

¶30

9. LCR is already received by this Court and hence, the office is directed to send back the same forthwith along with a copy of this order.

Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Yadav @ Kaushal Kumar 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

Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Yadav @ Sanni Samrat Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Guni Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Saurav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar