IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.136 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Muzaffarpur

======================================================

RAGHUNATH SAHNI S/o Mahesh Sahni R/o village- Sahdaullapur Bada

Jagarnath, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur

... ... Petitioner

Versus

Sunaina Devi W/o Raghunath Sahni, D/o Darogi Sahni R/o village-

Sahdaullapur Bada Jagarnath, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. A/P

Village- Kothiya, P.O. and P.S.- Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Suresh Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

3

05-09-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Akhileshwar Dayal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

By the impugned judgment the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Muzaffarpur has directed the petitioner to pay a sum

of Rs. 2000/- per months to the applicant-wife and Rs. 1000/- per

month to each of both the children. In this way the petitioner has

to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to his wife and minor children.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

applicant-wife is not his legally wife and both the children for

whom the maintenance is awarded are not his children. From the

impugned order this Court finds that despite service of notice the

opposite party – petitioner did not appear as a result whereof the

case was fixed for ex parte hearing. The applicant-wife examined

herself and two other witnesses in support of her case. She has

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.136 of 2021(3) dt.05-09-2022

2/3

stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the

year 2001. She went to her Sasural and stayed there for three

months. Again she went to her Sasural and on 18.05.2003 she

gave birth to her first child. It is her case that from beginning her

husband was neglected her and her minor child. There was also a

demand of dowry and because of non-fulfillment of the same he

was angry. The applicant gave birth to a second child but the

neglect continued. It is stated that the opposite party-petitioner is

an electric mechanic and earns at least Rs. 500/- per day but is not

paying any maintenance to his wife and children.

The applicant witness Mewalal Sahani and Ganesh

Sahani have supported the case of the applicant. They have stated

that the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial house and she

is leading a miserably life in her Naihar. She is unable to maintain

herself and her children.

In these circumstances, the learned Principal Judge has

directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance as indicated here-in-

above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has though submitted

that the petitioner was not duly served but he is unable to

controvert the finding recorded in paragraph ‘3’ of the impugned

judgment wherein it is stated that the notice was received by the

opposite party in the court below.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.136 of 2021(3) dt.05-09-2022

3/3

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised an

issue with regard to the marriage, but this Court finds that the

applicant and her witnesses have brought prima-facie materials to

support her case that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a proceeding under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding and it does not

require a long drawn trial. Further it is a piece of social legislation

and it has been brought in the statute book to provide some succor

to the neglected women and children. In this case, the learned

court below has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 2000/- and Rs.

1000/- to the applicant-wife and the minor children. In the present

days economic condition and the price index of the country even

this amou