SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 243

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Mirtunjay Kumar Mishra,, Advocate, Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate, Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Upendra Kumar, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Manini Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Binay Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Manas Rajdeep, Advocate

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - The Family Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000 to the wife and Rs.2,000 to the daughter, with arrangements for payment of arrears in installments - The husband contended that the marriage was forcibly solemnized and that the wife had an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law - The court held that obligations under Section 125 are based on the status of the marriage and legitimacy of the children, with the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act prevails unless rebutted - The husband's failure to prove non-access undermines his claims regarding paternity - The court found that the wife and daughter are entitled to maintenance as per the law. (Paras 17-35, 40-49)

(B) Legal principles - Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC aims to prevent destitution; orders are based on prima facie satisfaction of marital status; findings regarding marital status are tentative, not final. (Paras 20, 24, 48)

(C) Appeal standards - The High Court's review in maintenance matters does not involve reassessing evidence for positive findings regarding marital status but involves evaluation in case of negative findings. (Paras 24, 52)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top