Patna High Court
DOST MOHAMMADversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The revision petition is dismissed; the enhanced maintenance order stands.
Summary
Dost Mohammad filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order that raised his maintenance liability to Rs. 6,300 per month, more than 50% of the court's assessed income of Rs. 12,600. He relied on the Supreme Court's guideline that maintenance should not exceed 25% of a husband's net salary, as stated in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury. The respondent wife argued that the guideline applies only to salaried persons, that the petitioner’s actual income is higher than the assessed minimum‑wage figure, and that the increased amount is necessary given rising living costs. The High Court observed that the income assessment was based on a conservative minimum‑wage calculation, that the petitioner had two marriages indicating a higher earning capacity, and that no documentary proof of income was produced. Consequently, the Court held that the 25% rule could not be rigidly applied in this case and dismissed the revision petition, leaving the enhanced maintenance order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court's enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 6,300 per month, exceeding 25% of the assessed income, violates the Supreme Court guideline on maintenance for a husband.
- Whether the Supreme Court's 25% rule applies to a person whose income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages rather than a salaried net salary.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- revision
- Supreme Court guideline
- 25% rule
- assessed income
- cost of living
- multiple marriages
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.251 of 2022
======================================================
Dost Mohammad S/o Oli Mohammad, R/o Village- Isuwapur, P.S.- Traiyan,
Distt.- Saran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rakiya Khaton W/o Dost Mohammad, D/o Antullah Ansari R/o village-
Mahuli, Post- Abouther, P.S.- Taraiyan, Distt.- Saran, at present R/o Sutihar
Tole Juman, Post- Sutihar, P.S.- Derni, Distt.- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari
For the State : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Criminal Revision petition has been
filed against the order dated 22.02.2021 passed in Miscellaneous
Case No. 8 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the order passed in
Maintenance Case No. 94 of 2005 has been modified by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra, enhancing the
maintenance amount to Rs. 6,300/- per month to be paid to the
opposite party no. 2, starting from March, 2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is not maintainable as it has been passed against
the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to
time. Though the learned Family Court assessed the income of the
petitioner to be Rs. 12,600/-, it directed the petitioner to make
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.251 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
2/4
payment of Rs. 6,300/- per month to the opposite party no. 2,
which is more than 50% of the assessed income of the petitioner.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan
Dey Chowdury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in
(2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein relying on Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar
v. Raj Kumari & Anr., the Supreme Court held that 25% of the
husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as
maintenance to the respondent wife. Therefore, the impugned
order is not sustainable as the maintenance awarded is more than
50% of the assessed income.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no. 2 vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. He further submits that the direction of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding payment of 25% of amount is
with regard to salary of a person and not to be assessed income as
the learned Family Court calculated the income of the petitioner
on the basis of minimum wages prescribed by the Government
order. The petitioner is having much more than the said income as
the petitioner has two wives and four children. The opposite party
no. 2 is also having two children and the amount of Rs. 6,300/- by
no stretch of imagination could be said to be excessive.
6. Learned counsel further submits that moreover,
this order was passed in the year 2021 and since then, the expenses
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.251 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
3/4
have risen many manifold and cost of living has also increased.
The petitioner has not been making any payment and the opposite
party no. 2 has been facing serious hardships. He further submits
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same be
sustained.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the
record.
8. From perusal of the record I find that vide order
dated 23.12.2010, the petitioner was earlier directed to pay Rs.
2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the opposite party
no. 2 from the date of filing of the case. This amount was
thereafter, enhanced to Rs. 6,300/- per month vide impugned order
dated 22.02.2021. Admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is having
two daughters. It also appears on the that so far as income of the
petitioner is concerned, no documentary evidence has come on
record, though statement on affidavit has been made regarding the
income of the opposite party no. 2. The learned trial Court
calculated the income of the petitioner on the basis of minimum
wages, but the petitioner has admittedly solemnized two
marriages. If the petitioner would not have any income, it was not
possible for him to solemnize marriage twice. Therefore, the
assessment of income of the petitioner by the learned Family
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.251 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
4/4
Court appears to be on the conservative side. The petitioner did not
challenge the order earlier passed granting maintenance of Rs.
2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and this goes on to
show that petitioner was having commensurate income to make
payment of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 2010. It is quite natural that the
income of the petitioner would have increased after 11 years and
would not have remained the same. Therefore, there could be no
strict application of 25% rule in the present case as that guideline
is with regard to salaried person. In case where the income is not
certain and there are various components of it, same principle
would not have any strict application.
9. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
challenge to the order of the learned trial Court while relying on
the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of a
salaried person is misconceived. Hence, I find no merit in the
present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date 20.02.2026
Checking your session…