Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this criminal revision case, the petitioner challenged a 2004 order by a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) granting monthly maintenance of ₹1,500 to his divorced wife (O.P. No. 2) and ₹500 to their minor daughter (O.P. No. 3) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The core contention was that since the petitioner had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree from a Delhi court in 2003 on grounds of desertion, the wife was no longer entitled to maintenance. He also argued that the wife was now earning ₹7,000 per month as a Nyaymitra and could support herself.
On the other hand, the wife appeared in person and argued that being divorced did not disentitle her to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, especially since she had not remarried. She cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180, which holds that even a divorced wife retains the right to claim maintenance if she cannot maintain herself.
The Patna High Court agreed with her. The Court clarified that the explanation to Section 125(1) of the CrPC includes a divorced woman as a “wife” for the purpose of claiming maintenance, provided she has not remarried and is unable to sustain herself.
The Court further observed that:
- The wife had no independent income at the time when the maintenance was awarded.
- Even if she now earns ₹7,000 per month, that cannot override the past dues of maintenance since 2004.
- The petitioner had not paid a single rupee in maintenance since the original order and had financially benefited by delaying the process.
The Court refused to interfere with the SDJM’s order and directed the petitioner to clear all arrears within four months in equal installments, and to continue paying monthly maintenance going forward.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is a significant affirmation of the rights of divorced women under Indian law. It clarifies that a woman divorced on grounds of desertion still qualifies for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as long as she has not remarried and lacks adequate means of income.
For divorced women, this ruling offers judicial reassurance that they cannot be denied basic sustenance based on the ground of desertion alone. It also discourages husbands from using procedural tactics to indefinitely delay financial responsibilities.
For the government and legal institutions, the case underscores the need for quick enforcement of maintenance orders and suggests that economic hardship endured by women over decades due to non-payment should be given due weight during litigation.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
- Yes, as per Explanation (b) to Section 125(1), a divorced woman is considered a “wife” for maintenance purposes if she has not remarried.
- Does divorce on the ground of desertion bar maintenance rights?
- No. Supreme Court precedent in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (2000) confirms entitlement.
- Can current earnings negate the right to maintenance granted in 2004?
- No. Earnings of ₹7,000/month in 2020 were held insufficient to deny arrears from 2004.
- Should long non-payment be penalized or excused?
- The Court criticized the delay and required payment in four equal monthly installments.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 180
- Archita @ Anu Seth v. Sunil Seth, CRL.REV.P. 455 of 2015 (Delhi High Court)
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 180
- Sukumar Dhibar v. Anjali Dasi, 1983 Cri LJ 36 (Calcutta High Court)
- Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70
Case Title
Ranjit Kumar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2005
Citation(s)
2020 (2) PLJR 868
Coram and Names of Judges
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Counsel
- For Opposite Party No. 2: Appeared in person (Ms. Seema Kumari)
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/vieworder/NyM4IzIwMDUjNDEjTg==-M15D0jHw9KE=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
