IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Avadh Kishore Sah @ Awadhesh Sah Son Of Birendra Prasad Sah - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar –Respondent
Criminal Revision No.262 of 2020
Decided on : 07-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence submission in maintenance case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments against maintenance claim. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal provisions for maintenance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. proof standards in maintenance cases. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. testimony regarding income. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. evaluation of claims in maintenance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. legitimacy of child under section 112. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. rulings regarding maintenance claims. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. final order regarding maintenance. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, whereby learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife/O.P. No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to his daughter/O.P. No.3 towards their maintenance.
The maintenance to the daughter is payable till her marriage as per the impugned order and arrears of the maintenance amount is directed to be paid in three installments within six months.
2. The factual background of the case is that on 26.07.2012, O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 filed Misc. Case No. 96 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.PC for their maintenance against the petitioner and his parents. However, it appears that later on parents were deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties before the Court below.
Case of Soni Devi as per the Maintenance Petition
3. As per the allegation made in the maintenance petition, the marriage between the petitioner and Soni Devi was solemnized on 18.03.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of the wedlock, O.P. No.3 was born. As per further allegation, on account of non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, O.P. No.2/wife of the petitioner was subjected to physical assault, on account of which, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and live at her maike. It is further alleged that petitioner-husband was having illicit relationship with one lady viz., Khushbu Kumari and hence, he was subjecting his wife/O.P. No. 2 to torture. O.P. No.2/Soni Devi has also alleged that her husband and her parents-in-law wanted her to die, so that her husband could remarry Khushbu Kumari and get handsome dowry. It is further alleged that Soni Devi/O.P. No.2 has no source of income to maintain herself and her daughter and despite demand, her husband or her parents-in- law did not pay even a single penny for her maintenance and that of her daughter and she has been living a miserable life at her maike. It is also stated that she has been ready to live with her husband but her husband has not been ready to keep her in his matrimonial home. Regarding income of her husband, it is alleged that her husband is in Government job and his income from cultivation and business is Rs.24,000/- per month.
Case of Avadh Kishore Sah as per his show cause
4. On notice, petitioner/husband of Soni Devi appeared before the Family Court and filed his show cause contesting the maintenance petition filed by his wife and his daughter. Regarding marriage, it is stated by the petitioner that his marriage was forcibly solemnized with Soni Devi at Bababudha Nath Temple, Bhagalpur. He has also disputed the paternity of Gudiya Kumari, the daughter of Soni Devi. He has stated that Gudiya Kumari was born to Soni Devi on 08.08.2010, whereas his marriage with Soni Devi was solemnized on 18.03.2010. As such, Gudiya Kumari was born just after about 4 and ½ months of his marriage with Soni Devi. It is further claimed by Awadhesh Sah that his wife/Soni Devi is having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law viz., Vishnudeo Sah and she is not interested to continue her matrimonial life with him. Regarding his employment and income, he has stated that he is employed in the office of Collecto
Yamunabai A. Adhav Vs. Anantrao S. Adhav
Savitaben S. Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Ivan Rathinam Vs. Milan Joseph
Balram Yadav Vs. Fulmaniya Yadav
Dwarika P. Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
AI
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.
Wife and legitimate child are entitled to maintenance unless proven living in adultery, with allegations requiring strong substantiation.
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.
The judgment emphasizes the duty to prevent destitution and vagrancy, the need for evidence to establish income, and the balancing of interests and financial capacity in determining maintenance under....
Unmarried daughters are entitled to maintenance from their father even after attaining majority if unable to support themselves, as per Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'wife' under Section 125 of CrPC should be interpreted liberally, considering the social context and the purpose of the provision, to....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.