Patna High Court Upholds ₹15,000 Monthly Maintenance to Estranged Wife and Child Despite Husband’s Objections

Patna High Court Upholds ₹15,000 Monthly Maintenance to Estranged Wife and Child Despite Husband’s Objections

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 337 of 2018 dismissed a husband’s challenge to a family court order that required him to pay ₹15,000 per month in maintenance to his estranged wife and minor child. The Court found no irregularity or legal flaw in the lower court’s decision and emphasized the petitioner’s failure to actively contest the proceedings despite multiple opportunities.

The case originated from a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the wife and child before the Family Court in Begusarai. They alleged that after the birth of their son, the petitioner and his family began demanding dowry and even attempted to poison the wife. Following these events, she returned to her parents’ home with her child and initiated maintenance proceedings, citing no independent income or means to sustain herself and the child.

The petitioner appeared during the proceedings but failed to take meaningful steps on multiple hearing dates. Despite receiving a chance to contest the case, he was ultimately debarred from participating further due to his continued absence. The Family Court, relying on testimonies of the wife and her family, found that she was unemployed and living in difficult conditions, and that the husband had a stable income, reportedly earning ₹45,000 per month from employment at Hindalco and owning property in Ranchi.

The petitioner challenged the decision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, claiming he wasn’t given a fair opportunity and that the court failed to explicitly state whether the wife lacked means to support herself. However, the High Court rejected this argument, holding that the Family Court had indeed considered relevant evidence and there was no need to restate facts already present in the record.

The High Court also directed Hindalco to deduct arrears and future maintenance directly from the petitioner’s salary. The Court clarified that pending dues must be calculated at the rate of ₹25,000 per month (adjusting interim payments of ₹10,000), and subsequent monthly payments of ₹15,000 are to be deposited regularly.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that spouses and children abandoned or neglected by a financially stable partner are entitled to adequate maintenance under law. It also serves as a reminder to litigants that procedural delays and neglecting court hearings can weaken their case. The decision strengthens the rights of women and children, particularly in cases where the husband has the means but refuses to provide support. Employers, like Hindalco in this case, can be directed to deduct maintenance from salaries, ensuring compliance with court orders.

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

  • Whether the petitioner was denied a fair chance to contest the maintenance case?
    • Held: No. The petitioner had several opportunities but failed to participate actively.
  • Whether the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance without explicit findings on the wife’s financial condition?
    • Held: No. Evidence from witnesses and pleadings clearly showed the wife’s financial dependence.
  • Was the amount of ₹15,000 per month justified?
    • Held: Yes. Given the husband’s income and the cost of living, the amount was found reasonable.
  • Can arrears be recovered through employer deduction?
    • Held: Yes. Hindalco was directed to compute and deduct arrears and deposit them in court.

Case Title

Ranjan Kumar vs. Priti Kumari and Another

Case Number

Criminal Revision No. 337 of 2018

Citation(s)

2020 (1) PLJR 487

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

  • For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Rahul Pandey, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra
  • For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh
  • For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyMzMzcjMjAxOCMxI04=-cwALZLUgFd4=

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.

Aditya Kumar

Aditya Kumar is a dedicated and detail-oriented legal intern with a strong academic foundation in law and a growing interest in legal research and writing. He is currently pursuing his legal education with a focus on litigation, policy, and public law. Aditya has interned with reputed law offices and assisted in drafting legal documents, conducting research, and understanding court procedures, particularly in the High Court of Patna. Known for his clarity of thought and commitment to learning, Aditya contributes to Samvida Law Associates by simplifying complex legal topics for public understanding through well-researched blog posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News