Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Criminal Revision No.1300 of 2019
(18.3.2025)
Nathuni Paswan ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. ... Respondents
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Award of maintenance – Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wife is entitled to get maintenance – Wife means "legally wedded wife" – Legally wedded wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband even if she is living separately for sufficient reason and she has no means to maintain herself and husband, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife – Unlike matrimonial proceedings, where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature and meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution of wife and provide a speedy remedy in supply of food, clothing and shelter to deserted/neglected wife – If a man takes plea of invalidity of his marriage with petitioner/wife on account of bigamy either of himself or petitioner/wife, he is required to prove his allegation of previous marriage of himself or petitioner/wife with strict proof – If a man during subsistence of his first marriage remarries another lady concealing from her his surviving marriage, he is not permitted to take advantage of his own wrong raising plea of bigamy. (Paras 29, 41, 42, 43 and 44)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20 – Award of maintenance – Applicant-OP has been living separately from her husband for last 4 years and her daughter is 5 years of age – In revisional jurisdiction, High Court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own finding in regard to validity of marriage or paternity of child, unless there is patent perversity of finding of fact or error of jurisdiction or that of law – Minor daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, married or unmarried is entitled to get maintenance from her father, if she is unable to maintain herself till her marriage – Applicant has prima facie proved that appellant married her in Shiv Temple at Deoghar as per Hindu rites and customs, concealing from her his previous marriage – Both applicant and her minor daughter are entitled to get maintenance from appellant as per law – Petition allowed in part, modifying quantum of maintenance amount. (Paras 45, 46, 50, 56, 59 and 60)
Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the final order dated 14.08.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria in Maintenance Case No. 32M of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the O.P. No. 2/Renu Kumari and her daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari @ Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively per month.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that O.P. No. 2/Renu Kumari had filed Maintenance Case No. 32M of 2014 under Section 125 Cr.PC on 03.07.2014 for her maintenance as well as maintenance to her 2 & ½ years old daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari, claiming that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and her daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari is born out of the wedlock. As per her claim, her marriage with the petitioner/Nathuni Paswan was solemnized on 25.06.2002 at Shiv Temple, Deoghar as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
3. It has been further alleged by O.P. No. 2/Renu Kumari that the petitioner/Nathuni Paswan had concealed his first marriage with Gulabi Devi and sexually exploited her at Government quarter of Sadar Hospital, Khagaria on the pretext of providing assistance to her in getting a Government job. When she was carrying pregnancy of her daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari, the petitioner/Nathuni Paswan married her at Shiv Temple, Deoghar. She has further claimed that the petitioner is a Government servant and his annual income is Rs. 8,00,000/-.
4. It is also alleged that when she came to know about the first marriage of the petitioner/Nathuni Paswan, the petitioner stated to her that he had deserted his first wife and he would be with her. Thereafter, he left Renu Kumari and her daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari at Government quarter, Khagaria. When she again met Nathuni Paswan, she was assaulted by him and she filed Criminal Case bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2013, for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 494 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending consideration of the Court. Despite her persistent demand for maintenance, she was not being maintained by the petitioner/Nathuni Paswan and she herself is unable to maintain herself and her daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari as she had no means of any income. She has also claimed that Nathuni Paswan has also opened LIC Policy bearing No. 529208601 in the name of his daughter.
5. On notice, the petitioner/ Nathuni Paswan herein appears before the Family Court and files his show cause, wherein he denies all the allegations made by Renu Kumari against him. He denies that he has ever married Renu Kumari and he is biological father of her daughter Pihu Kumari @ Ruchi Kumari. He also states that he belongs to Scheduled Castes community, whereas Renu Kumari is a Bhumihar by caste and she has been already married with one Dheeraj Singh, resident of village Sadanandpur, P.S. Baliya, District – Begusarai. He also states that she is a trained A.N.M. and she had desire to get a Government job by taking advantage of reservation showing herself as wife of Nathuni Paswan. He also states that he has been already married with one Gulabi Devi and out of their wedlock, he has 32 years old son and 36 years old daughter. He denies that he has annual income of Rs. 8,00,000/-. He, however, admits that one Criminal Case has been filed against him on account of his failure to cooperate with her in getting a job in Health Department. He states that Renu Kumari is a trained A.N.M and has been working in a private nursing home earning Rs. 10, 000/- per month. He also claims that he is not aware about any LIC Policy in the name of the daughter of Renu Kumari.
6. During trial, the following witnesses have been examined on behalf of the applicant, Renu Kumari.
(i) Renu Kumari herself as P.W.-1.
(ii) Veena Devi as P.W.-2, who is working as Asha Didi, Sadar Hospital at Khagaria for last one year and also as maid at Sadar Hospital, Khagaria.
(iii) Anjula Devi as P.W.-3, who run
Wife and legitimate child are entitled to maintenance unless proven living in adultery, with allegations requiring strong substantiation.
Once such presumption of a lawful marriage commenced to operate in favour of a marriage which has taken place in fact, such a presumption alone would be good enough to entitle the wife to maintain.
Maintenance obligations under Section 125 Cr.PC are upheld, emphasizing the presumption of legitimacy for children born during marriage, which must be rebutted by clear evidence.
In maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not required; a prima facie view of marital status suffices for claims of maintenance.
The Court clarified that a second wife whose marriage is void due to the survival of the first marriage is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the need for stri....
Maintenance can be granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on a marriage-like relationship, without strict proof of marriage; primary focus is on neglect and economic capabilities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
