Patna High Court

Ganesh PandeyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The modification petition is dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction to alter the maintenance condition, which must be decided by the trial court.

Summary

Ganesh Pandey sought modification of an anticipatory bail order dated 29‑06‑2022 that required him to pay Rs.4,000 per month as interim maintenance to the complainant, Rani Devi. Pandey argued that the complainant had remarried and therefore the maintenance condition should be altered. The High Court noted that the bail order merely imposed a temporary payment subject to any future maintenance decree by the trial court. It held that questions of maintenance and the effect of a second marriage are matters for the civil or criminal trial court, not for the bail jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition for modification was dismissed. The order underscores the limited scope of bail courts to intervene in ancillary maintenance issues.

Issues considered

Can the condition of interim maintenance imposed in an anticipatory bail order be modified on the ground that the complainant has remarried?
Does the High Court have jurisdiction to decide maintenance matters in the context of a bail order?

Subjects

anticipatory bail
modification petition
maintenance
criminal procedure
bail conditions
second marriage
jurisdiction

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81043 of 2025
                                              In
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15940 of 2020

                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1172 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
                                                    District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Ganesh Pandey S/o Ramakant Pandey R/o village- Mordiwa, Police Station-
                 Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur

                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Rani Devi W/o Ganesh Pandey R/o vill - Mordiwa, P.S.- Samastipur
                 (Muffasil), Distt.- Samastipur, presently residing at vill - Udaypur, P.s-
                 Bangra, Distt.- Samastipur

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner    :       Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the State         :       Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   09-01-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. This petition has been filed for modification of

                   order dated 29.06.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15940 of 2020

                   whereby the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with a

                   condition to pay Rs. 4,000/- (Four thousand) per month, as

                   interim solace/maintenance, in the bank account of the

                   complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81043 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
                                            2/3




                       3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

          compliance of aforesaid order, petitioner is regularly paying

          aforesaid amount in the bank account of complainant/Opposite

          Party No. 2 but the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 does not

          wants to live with this petitioner and has already solemnized

          second marriage and, therefore, the order              dated 29.06.2022

          passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15940 of 2020 requires modification, so

          far as payment of Rs. 4,000/-, as maintenance, is concerned.

                       4. This Court, while allowing pre-arrest bail to the

          petitioner vide order dated 29.06.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

          15940 of 2020, on the submission of petitioner himself, had

          directed him to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim

          relief/solace      to    complainant/Opposite        Party   No.2   with

          observation that the aforesaid payment will be subject to any

          order passed in the maintenance case for final settlement. The

          issue of maintenance or the fact that the complainant/Opposite

          Party No. 2 has already solemnized second marriage cannot be

          decided by this Court. It can only be decided by the concerned

          Court at the stage of trial after giving full opportunity to both

          the parties and as such, the modification petition cannot be

          allowed on this ground alone.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81043 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                                    5.   Accordingly,          this   modification   petition   is

                       dismissed.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…