Patna High Court
NITU SINHAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The term ‘wife’ under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be given a broad interpretation and proof of a valid marriage is not a pre‑condition for maintenance.
Summary
Nitu Sinha filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter after her husband, Awdhesh Kumar Sinha, concealed his prior marriage and later ceased financial support. The Family Court had rejected her maintenance claim, prompting her to apply for quashing that order. The High Court examined whether a woman in such circumstances qualifies as a "wife" for the purposes of Section 125, noting the Supreme Court’s decision in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha which adopts a broad interpretation of the term. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that proof of a valid marriage is not a pre‑condition for maintenance where a conjugal relationship exists. Consequently, the order rejecting the maintenance claim was set aside, the matter remanded for fresh consideration, and an interim maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month was directed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be deemed a "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite the alleged bigamous marriage
- Whether proof of a valid marriage is a prerequisite for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 498-A, 504
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- wife definition
- bigamy
- family law
- interim maintenance
- quash order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67722 of 2019
======================================================
Nitu Sinha Wife Of Awdhesh Kumar Sinha Resident Of Ward No. 26, Anand
Nagar, Newa Lal Chowk, P.S. Maranga , District - Purnea, Presently Daughter
Of Vimal Mishra, Resident Of Mogalia Purandaha, Banmankhi, P.S.-
Dhamdaha, District- Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Bihar
2. Awdhesh Kumar Sinha Son Of Late Jai Prakash Pd. Ward No. 26, Anand
Nagar, Newa Lal Chowk, Purnea, Permanent Resident Of Village- Paniapar,
P.O.- Tevarwai Via Biharsharif, P.S.- Biharsarif, District- Nalanda, Local
Address - Nayatola, C/O Sarojjee, P.O.- Purnea, P.S.- K. Hat, District-
Purnia.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 12.06.2019 passed in Maintenance Case No. 175 of
2013 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnia by
which the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with the
prayer for grant of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance for
herself and her daughter was rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner,
who has a daughter from her previous marriage, was living as a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67722 of 2019(5) dt.27-01-2026
2/5
single woman after her first husband went missing. The O.P. No.
2 proposed marriage to the petitioner’s father, promising to
accept the petitioner and her daughter as his family. The
petitioner and her father accepted the proposal from O.P. No. 2.
Subsequently, the petitioner married to O.P. No. 2 on 03.11.2010
at the Puran Devi Temple in Purnia. The O.P. No. 2 is a
government employee working as a clerk in the Health
Department. However, O.P. No. 2 concealed the fact that he was
already married and his first wife was still alive. Following the
marriage, the petitioner, along with her daughter, Sakshi Priya,
moved to Naya Tolla, Purnia, where they lived together as
husband and wife for more than two years.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
upon discovering the existence of first wife of O.P. No. 2 and
his family, the petitioner raised objections. Subsequently, in the
first week of February 2012, O.P. No. 2 started torturing the
petitioner and in response, the petitioner filed a complaint case
(Case No. 2094/12) under Sections 498-A, 323, 379, and 504 of
the Indian Penal Code before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Purnia. She further submits that with the
intervention of well-wishers, the matter was eventually
compromised based on an undertaking given by O.P. No. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67722 of 2019(5) dt.27-01-2026
3/5
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that after a few months, O.P. No. 2 again started
harassing the petitioner and stopped giving any financial support
to her and their daughter. Therefore, the petitioner filed a
maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, bearing
Maintenance Case No. 175 of 2013. She further submits that the
O.P. No. 2 appeared in the maintenance case and claimed that he
was already married and had children from his first marriage.
He denied his marriage with the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner submitted documentary evidence to
prove her marriage with O.P. No. 2, filing two applications to
mark those documents as exhibits and have them read as
evidence. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 also filed
documents to show that the petitioner had been married before.
Both the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 examined their witnesses.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of
her submissions has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Chanmuniya Vs Virendra
Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr, 2011 (1) SCC 141.
8. The learned counsel for the State and the learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have opposed the application of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67722 of 2019(5) dt.27-01-2026
4/5
petitioner.
9. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the records of the case.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chanmuniya (Supra) has held that construing the term ‘wife’
broad and expansive interpretation should be given to term
‘wife’ to include even those cases where a man and woman have
been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long
period of time, strict of proof of marriage should not be a pre-
condition for maintenance.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the application stands
allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 12.06.2019 passed in
Maintenance Case No. 175 of 2013 by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Purnia is hereby set aside.
12. The matter is remanded to the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Purnia for fresh consideration in accordance with
law and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Chanmuniya (Supra). The Court below
shall pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties in
accordance with law.
13. The O.P. No. 2 is directed to pay interim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67722 of 2019(5) dt.27-01-2026
5/5
maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner until the
final disposal of the case filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C
by the petitioner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…