Patna High Court
Abhay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The High Court upheld the Family Court's interim maintenance order and dismissed the revision petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhay Kumar Singh, filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order dated 04‑09‑2025 of the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bhojpur, which granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to the respondent, Manish Kumari. The petitioner alleged that the Family Court failed to consider his loss of income, his expenses, the loan he had taken, and the alleged ill‑behaviour of the respondent, claiming the order was illegal and arbitrary. The High Court examined the record and found that the Family Court had indeed taken into account the affidavits of both parties, the petitioner’s monthly expenses, his share in ancestral property, and the pending nature of the matrimonial dispute before passing the interim order. The Court held that under its revisional jurisdiction it could not re‑appreciate the facts or substitute its view for that of the Family Court, and that no illegality, impropriety or irregularity was apparent. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction over a Family Court's interim maintenance order?
- Whether the Family Court erred in failing to consider the petitioner’s income, expenses, and other relevant circumstances while fixing interim maintenance.
Subjects
- interim maintenance
- Family Court
- revision jurisdiction
- maintenance order
- non‑interference
- income and expenses
- criminal revision
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1237 of 2025
======================================================
Abhay Kumar Singh S/o- Uma Shankar Singh Village- Lakshmanpur PO-
Daulatpur PS- Muffasil District-Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manish Kumari D/o- Lalan Prasad, W/o- Abhay Kumar Singh R/v-
Charkhambha Gali, Khetadi at South of Jail Ps- Ara Town Dist-Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I
intend to dispose of the revision petition at this stage itself.
2. The present criminal revision petition is
directed against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara in Maintenance
Case No. 215 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned
Principal Judge allowed the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-
per month to opposite party no. 2 to be paid on 15th day of each
month, from the date of the order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order has been passed without consideration of
facts and circumstances and material available on record. The
petitioner has runs only a saloon and earns Rs.15,000/- per
month and the saloon used to be run in the partnership. But the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1237 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
2/3
saloon ran into losses and petitioner was forced to close the
saloon and now he is unemployed and is having no income. The
learned Family Court failed to consider the reply of the
petitioner dated 02.08.2024. The learned Family Court further
failed to consider the income of the parties before deciding the
quantum of the interim maintenance. Learned counsel further
submits that the learned Family Court also failed to consider
that due to ill behaviour of opposite party no. 2, the parents of
the petitioner have thrown out the petitioner from their house.
The learned Family Court also did not consider that the
petitioner is always ready to keep opposite party no. 2 with
honour and dignity but she is not ready to join the matrimonial
life with the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal,
arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law.
4. Perused the records.
5. From perusal of the order dated 04.09.2025, I
find that the learned Family Court has considered all the
averments made by the petitioner before it. The learned Family
Court took into consideration the respective affidavit of the
parties regarding their assets and liabilities. It has also come in
the affidavit of the petitioner that his monthly expenses are
Rs.13,000/- and he has his share in the ancestral property and he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1237 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
3/3
has taken loan of Rs.1,96,000/- for purchase of a bike. The
learned Family Court has also taken note of the fact that the
matter is still pending and the merit of the contention of the
parties are yet to be decided. In this background, the learned
Family Court passed the order which has been challenged
before this Court. Thus, the order has been passed after due
consideration of the submission of the petitioner.
6. In its revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot
re-appreciate the fact to substitute its view upon the view taken
by the learned Family Court. Further, the order does not appear
to be suffering from any illegality or impropriety or even
irregularity as the contention of the petitioner has been
considered by the learned Family Court before passing the order
and for this reason, this Court finds that there is no material on
record to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date 29.01.2026
Checking your session…