IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.203 of 2024 ======================================================

Abhijeet Darshan Son Of Balmiki Kumar Sinha Resident Of Village -

Narayanpur, P.S. - Sakatpur, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Kalpna Devi Daughter Of Sudhir Kumar, Wife Of Abhijeet Darshan Resident Of Village - Narayanpur, P.S. - Sakatpur, District - Darbhanga. At Present Resident Of Village - Chapahi, P.S. - Rajnagar, District - Madhubani ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

10 16-02-2026 The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.02.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in maintenance petition bearing M.R. Case No. 18 of 2020, filed under Section 125 Cr.PC by O.P. No. 2 herein.

2. By the impugned order, the petitioner is admittedly the husband of O.P. No. 2 herein and he has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to his wife/O.P. No. 2 herein towards her maintenance.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there was no rhyme and reason for his wife/O.P. No. 2 to leave his matrimonial home and hence, she is not entitled to get any maintenance in view of Section 125(4)

Cr.PC.

5. He further submits that even as per the material on record, the monthly income of the petitioner is only Rs. 3,000/- per month and hence, award of Rs. 8,000/- per month to his wife/ O.P. No. 2 herein towards her maintenance would be unjust and impractical.

6. He also submits that O.P. No. 2/wife has also source of income by way of providing tuition to students.

7. However, there is no other point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order.

8. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submit that as per the material on record, there is nothing to show that the petitioner-husband has been willing to keep his wife in his matrimonial home. As a matter of fact, the O.P. No. 2/wife has left the matrimonial home of the husband-

petitioner on account of demand of dowry and cruelty being committed by the petitioner-husband.

9. They further submit in regard to monthly income of the petitioner-husband that admittedly he provides private tuition to the students. However, as per the claim of the petitioner-husband, his monthly income from tuition is only Rs. 3,000/-, though his real income is much higher than that. As a matter of fact, the monthly income of the petitioner-husband is Rs. 50,000/- from the private tuition and his landed property. They further submit that the petitioner-husband has failed to prove that O.P. No. 2/wife has any source of income.

10. I considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the material on record.

11. I find that admittedly the petitioner is husband of O.P. No. 2, though there is no child born out of the wedlock. It is also undisputed that O.P. No. 2/wife has been living at her home. There is rival claim between the parties in regard to living of O.P. No. 2/wife from her petitioner-husband. As per the O.P. No. 2/wife, she is living separately at her maike on account of demand of dowry and cruelty having been committed by the husband-petitioner, whereas the husband is claiming that there was no reason to the O.P. No. 2/wife to live separately from his matrimonial home.

12. However, I find that the husband-