Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1379
PATNA HIGH COURT
JITENDRA KUMAR, J
Avadh Kishore Sah @ Awadhesh Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No.262 of 2020 | PS. Case No.- Year-0
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Mirtunjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate, Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Manini Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Binay Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Manas Rajdeep, Advocate
Wife and legitimate children are entitled to maintenance despite allegations of illicit relationships, with the presumption of legitimacy unless disproven under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance of wife and child - Petition for maintenance by wife and minor daughter - Maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to wife and Rs.2,000/- to daughter ordered by Family Court - Allegations of illicit relationships between parties considered - Evidence of parties and witnesses analyzed - Court upheld maintenance award, finding that wife has no means and husband has sufficient income - Marriage validity and paternity of child discussed, with emphasis on legal presumptions under Section 112 of the Evidence Act regarding legitimacy - Petitioner failed to prove contentions against legitimacy and entitlement to maintenance - Dismissal of petition upheld by High Court. (Paras 1, 16, 30, 36, 50, 52)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's obligation for maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence and claims regarding divorce and marriage. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 29) |
| 3. arguments against maintenance claims and legality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. definition of 'wife' under section 125 crpc. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. legitimacy of children and maintenance rights. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. summary nature of proceedings under section 125 crpc. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. entitlement of maintenance to soni devi. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. paternity and maintenance responsibilities. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. assessment of maintenance amount. (Para 50 , 51) |
| 10. final order and clarifications on findings. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
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 C
