Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raja Ram MehtaversusManju Devi

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The civil miscellaneous application is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to deposit the full outstanding maintenance amount with interest.

Summary

The petitioner sought to set aside a 2014 Family Court order that granted the respondent maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing Rs 10,000 per month and a Rs 25,000 lump‑sum cost. The petitioner failed to file a statement of assets and did not pay the ordered amounts, having paid only Rs 2,20,000 to date. The respondent alleged that the petitioner, a contractor, entered a second marriage during the pendency of the suit and deliberately stalled execution proceedings. The High Court noted the petitioner’s deliberate non‑compliance and the respondent’s unemployment, finding no merit in the application. Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous application. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the full outstanding amount with interest at bank rates within three months, failing which coercive steps would be taken. The order of the Family Court remains in force.

Issues considered

  • Whether the civil miscellaneous application seeking to set aside the maintenance order is maintainable.
  • Whether the petitioner’s failure to comply with the Family Court’s maintenance and cost order warrants dismissal of the application.
  • Whether the petitioner can be compelled to deposit the outstanding maintenance amount with interest.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • maintenance pendente lite
  • Hindu Marriage Act
  • Family Court order
  • civil miscellaneous jurisdiction
  • non‑compliance
  • execution proceedings
  • second marriage

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.316 of 2025
                                                       In
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18367 of 2014
                 ======================================================
                 Raja Ram Mehta S/o Late Brahamdeo Mehta, Resident of Village - Baliya,
                 P.S. - Puraini, District- Madhepura.

                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
                 Manju Devi W/o Rajaram Mehta, D/o Sri Shivnandan Prasad @ Shivnandan
                 Mahto, Resident of Muhalla - Dakshine Mandiri, Chhatradhari Niwas, Patna,
                 P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :    Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh
                 For the Respondent/s   :    Mr.Vijay Prakash Bhargava
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

9   05-02-2026                 In compliance of order dated 29.01.2026, both parties

                   along with their respective counsel have appeared in Chamber

                   proceedings.

                               2. The present civil miscellaneous application has

                   been filed for setting aside the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by

                   learned Principal Judge Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial

                   Case No. 698 of 2011 whereby the learned Family Court while

                   allowing the petition dated 17.11.2011 filed by respondent wife

                   for grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the

                   Hindu Marriage Act directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/-

                   per month to the respondent towards her maintenance pendente

                   lite from the date of application i.e. from 17.11.2011. The

                   petitioner was further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.316 of 2025(9) dt.05-02-2026
                                             2/4




          cost to the respondent.

                       3. Despite the direction issued by this Court on

          29.01.2026, the petitioner has failed to file his statement of

          assets and liabilities. in light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

          decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2

          SCC 324 and Aditi alias Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma reported in

          (2023) SCC Online SC 1451 read with Pravin Kumar Jain vs.

          Anju Jain reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3678.

                       4.It appears that the petitioner has deliberately not

          complied with the order dated 29.01.2026. By the impugned

          order dated 28.05.2014, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum

          of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife towards

          maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application dated

          17.11.2011. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.

          25,000/- in one lump sum towards litigation costs to the

          respondent-wife. The aforesaid order has not been complied

          with by the petitioner.

                       5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that till

          date only a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been paid by the

          petitioner/husband to the respondent/wife, and that the petitioner

          is defying the aforesaid order by filing the present civil

          miscellaneous application. Petitioner is a big countractor and
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.316 of 2025(9) dt.05-02-2026
                                             3/4




          also doing business of brick kiln from which he has a good

          income. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has

          solemnised a second marriage with one Shabnam Kumari during

          the pendency of the suit, without obtaining leave of the Court or

          the consent of his wife at any point of time. It is further

          submitted that the petitioner is defying the impugned order on

          the pretext of filing the present civil miscellaneous application.

                       6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

          respondent/wife has filed Execution Case No. 420 of 2023, in

          which the petitioner/husband is not appearing, and has thus

          deliberately halted the execution proceedings.

                       7. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, and considering

          that respondent/wife is an unemployed lady, as per her averment

          and anyhow she is living her life, this Court is of the considered

          views that there is no merit in the present civil miscellaneous

          application and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

                       8. The petitioner is directed to deposit the entire

          amount along with interest at the bank rate from the date of

          passing of the impugned order. In the event of non-compliance,

          the learned Trial Court shall take coercive steps for realisation

          of the said amount and for payment thereof to the respondent.

          The order shall be complied with within a period of three
          Patna High Court C.Misc. No.316 of 2025(9) dt.05-02-2026
                                                       4/4




                    months from the date of passing of this order.




                                                (S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.