Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J
Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad @ Madan Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for maintenance based on marital status. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the legality of o.p. no.2's claim. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. support for o.p. no.2's claim. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. analysis of section 125 cr.p.c. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. interpretation of the term 'wife' in maintenance claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. validation of the trial court's order on maintenance. (Para 23) |
| 7. conclusion to dismiss the revision petition. (Para 24 , 25) |
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The instant Cr. Revision application is directed against the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Maintenance Case No. 448 of 2011, wherein the learned Trial Court allowed the maintenance petition filed by the opposite party no.2 (hereinafter referred to as “O.P. No.2”) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 for her maintenance by 15th day of every succeeding month with effect from 1st September, 2016 and has also directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.
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
