Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a case involving a wife’s right to fair maintenance, the Patna High Court significantly increased the monthly maintenance awarded to her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case involved a woman who had been granted ₹6,000 per month by the Family Court in Vaishali. Dissatisfied with the amount, she filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court seeking enhancement.

The petitioner, the legally wedded wife of the respondent, alleged domestic abuse, dowry harassment, and cruelty soon after her marriage in 2001. She had been living separately at her parental home (maike) and claimed that her husband, a Junior Engineer in the Indian Railways posted in New Delhi, was earning over ₹55,000 per month in 2017. She argued that ₹6,000 was grossly inadequate to meet her living expenses, especially in today’s economic conditions.

She also cited various judgments, including:

• Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705
• Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801
• Dr. Shayan Ahmad v. The State of Bihar, 2017 (4) PLJR 479

These judgments emphasize that maintenance must be adequate to allow a woman to live in dignity, reflecting her husband’s income and social status.

The respondent opposed the petition, claiming that he had to support his parents, son, and even a mentally disabled nephew. He stated that he had taken loans for family obligations and that agricultural income from his family’s land was controlled by his father.

However, the High Court found several inconsistencies in the husband’s claims. Notably:

• He admitted to earning ₹55,756 as net salary in 2017.
• He had not disclosed the full extent of his agricultural holdings.
• He gave vague statements about family dependents, which were never mentioned in the trial court.

The High Court held that:

• The Family Court had erred in granting such a low amount.
• The petitioner, as the wife, was entitled to live in dignity and in a manner consistent with the husband’s status.
• A sum of ₹6,000 was not enough for reasonable sustenance.

Accordingly, the Court increased the maintenance to ₹12,000 per month, to be paid with retrospective effect from the date of filing of the original case. Any interim maintenance already paid would be adjusted.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment strengthens the principle that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not merely for survival but for ensuring dignity. It sends a clear message that:

• Maintenance must reflect the earning capacity of the husband.
• Courts must scrutinize vague claims about financial burdens carefully.
• Women who are forced to live separately due to cruelty are still entitled to a dignified life.

It also reinforces that a working professional with a decent income cannot evade his legal obligation by providing unsubstantiated excuses about loans or family dependents.

For women across Bihar and India, this case affirms that the courts will intervene to ensure that justice is done, especially in cases where lower courts may have underestimated the financial needs of women living apart from their husbands.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Was ₹6,000 per month adequate maintenance considering the husband’s income and the cost of living?
  • No. The High Court held it to be insufficient and enhanced it to ₹12,000 per month.
• Did the husband present reliable financial data and disclose all sources of income?
  • No. The Court found his claims vague, incomplete, and contradictory.
• Is maintenance under Section 125 CrPC meant for mere survival?
  • No. The Court reiterated that it must allow the wife to live in dignity, matching the status she would have had in her matrimonial home.
• Final Outcome:
  • Criminal Revision allowed. Maintenance enhanced to ₹12,000/month with effect from the original filing date, subject to deduction of amounts already paid.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 = 2015(3) PLJR 58 SC
• Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801
• Dr. Shayan Ahmad v. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) PLJR 479

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
Same as above.

Case Title
[Name Redacted] v. [Name Redacted]

Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 230 of 2018

Citation(s)

2020 (3) PLJR 538

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
Mr. Srinandan Singh and Ms. Prakritita Sharma – for the Petitioner
Mr. Jai Prakash Verma – for the Respondent

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/vieworder/NyMyMzAjMjAxOCM3I04=-FV3hdnC–ak1–zxw=

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.