Patna High Court

Bharat ManiversusKhusboo Kumari @ Ruby Kumari

Decided: 6 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The revision petition is dismissed and the Family Court’s order granting maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month stands.

Summary

The petitioner, Bharat Mani, appealed to the Patna High Court seeking to set aside a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Khusboo Kumari, under Section 125 of the CrPC. The petitioner argued that the marriage was never consummated, that his wife had deserted him and was living in an adulterous relationship, and that his income and liabilities made the maintenance amount unaffordable. He also contended that the trial court failed to consider his wife's alleged independent income and the income of her parents. The Family Court, after evaluating the parties' affidavits and evidence, found no merit in the desertion or adultery allegations and held that the wife had no sufficient independent means, thereby justifying the maintenance award. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, held that the revision petition raised no legal error or irregularity, and dismissed the petition, leaving the maintenance order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the marriage was consummated and if non‑consummation affects the entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Whether desertion or alleged adultery by the wife disqualifies her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Whether the quantum of maintenance (Rs.10,000 per month) is appropriate in view of the petitioner’s income and expenses.
Whether the Family Court erred in fact‑finding or failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the wife’s income and parental support.
Whether the revision petition is maintainable in the absence of any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the trial court’s order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 125, 125(4)

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
desertion
adultery
consummation of marriage
revision petition
family court
quantum of maintenance

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.257 of 2024
======================================================
Bharat Mani son of Uday Kumar @ Uday Kumar Mishra Resident of Village-
Birpur Ward No-1, PS- Birpur Dist- Supaul P/A- Gali No-10, Lajwanti
Garden, Nangal Raya, South West Delhi

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Khusboo Kumari @ Ruby Kumari wife of Bharat Mani, D/o- Raj Kumar Jha
Resident of Village- Kamalapur PS- kunauli Dist- Supaul

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate
Ms. Shubhra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 06-04-2026

The instant revision petition has been preferred

for setting aside the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024

passed in Maintenance Case No. 60 of 2016 by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul, whereby and

whereunder the learned Principal Jude ordered the petitioner to

pay maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife,

opposite party Khusboo Kumari @ Ruby Kumari, from the date

of filing of the case, i.e., 04.06.2016.

02. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the

material placed on record, are that the opposite party filed a case
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
2/16

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the

court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul on

04.06.2016 and said case was numbered as Maintenance Case

No. 60 of 2016. The marriage of applicant/opposite party was

solemnized with the present petitioner on 05.02.2014 at her

ancestral home and in the marriage, a number of articles were

given to the petitioner apart from cash amount of Rs.23,50,000/-

for purchasing a vehicle.

03. The applicant/opposite party claimed that the

petitioner has been employed as Marketing Officer in Cipla

Limited Company at New Delhi having salary of Rs.1,00,000/-

per month while the father of the petitioner has been doing

business as contractor with permanent residence at Birpur, Ward

No. 1. Further case of the applicant/opposite party was that the

family members of the petitioner started pressurizing her father

for giving Rs.50,00,000/- for purchase of a house in Delhi and

when he could not meet this demand, the applicant/opposite

party was subjected to torture. The petitioner retained her

jewellery and she was brought to her parental home by the

petitioner who is not ready to keep her in his home. The

applicant/opposite party has been doing B.Ed. course and she

claimed her monthly expenses to be Rs.35,000/- but she has no
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
3/16

independent source of income. She further claimed that she has

filed cases against the petitioner and her family members

and she has to bear expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per

month in attending these cases. The applicant/opposite party

prayed for maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the

petitioner.

04. The petitioner appeared as opposite party in

the maintenance case and submitted that the averment made in

the maintenance petition is partly correct and partly false. The

petitioner admitted applicant/opposite party to be his wife but

denied that any jewellery articles were given to him or cash of

Rs.23,50,000/- was given to the petitioner for purchase of

vehicle. The petitioner claimed that the marriage was

solemnized with mutual consent of the two families without any

dowry being given or demanded. The petitioner further claimed

that he has been doing an ordinary job in Cipla Limited

Company, New Delhi and he somehow manages to maintain

himself and his family. The petitioner further submitted that the

applicant/opposite party never stayed with him after the

marriage and never accepted the petitioner as her husband,

mentally or emotionally. The applicant/opposite party is a

quarrelsome lady, who, at the instigation of her father and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
4/16

family members, never became ready to stay in her matrimonial

home. She did not allow the petitioner to make any physical

relationship with her and threatened him that if he would touch

her, she would commit suicide. The petitioner further claimed in

his written statement that the applicant/opposite party is a lady

of modern tastes and wanted to lead an independent life. Once

she left her matrimonial home on 02.07.2014 she never

returned. She has been illicit premarital relationship with one

Washid Ahmad and this fact was brought to the notice of the

learned trial court by filing an application. The petitioner has

further submitted that as no physical relationship was

established between the petitioner and the applicant/opposite

party due to the independent thoughts of the applicant/opposite

party and her premarital illicit relationship, the petitioner was

compelled to file a case for dissolution of marriage before the

court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide

Matrimonial Dissolution Case No. 88 of 2016. After getting the

notice of the said divorce case, the applicant/opposite party

filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 134C of

2016 in the court of learned ACJM, Birpur on false,

fabricated and baseless allegations in order to pressurize the

petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
5/16

05. The petitioner denied all the averments made

by the applicant/opposite party regarding his income and the

grounds taken by the applicant/opposite party regarding claim of

the maintenance amount.

06. The learned Principal Judge after

consideration of the evidence adduced by both sides, vide order

dated 08.01.2024, allowed the maintenance petition of the

applicant/opposite party partly on contest ordering the petitioner

to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

applicant/opposite party from the date of filing of the

maintenance petition. The learned trial court further ordered that

the arrears of maintenance amount since 04.06.2016 shall be

paid by the petitioner to the opposite party within six months in

six equal installments. This amount was made further subject to

adjustment of the amount paid by the petitioner to the

applicant/opposite party as maintenance in any other

proceeding/case. Aggrieved by the order of learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Supaul, the petitioner has preferred the

instant instant revision petition.

07. The learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not

sustainable as it suffers from illegality, irregularity and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
6/16

impropriety. The impugned order has been passed on erroneous

consideration and the same is not tenable on facts or law.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that the learned

Principal Judge has erred in not appreciating the vital facts that

the marriage of the parties has not been consummated and it is a

voidable marriage in the eyes of law. The learned Principal

Judge completely failed to appreciate the vital fact that the

opposite party has not been ready to live with the petitioner. She

has been living separately from the petitioner since 2014. The

learned Principal Jude has also not considered this fact that

opposite party has solemnized marriage with one Washid

Ahmad and she was having an extra marital relationship with

the said persons and both of them have been living together. The

learned trial court has also failed to consider that the

applicant/opposite party has deserted her husband and failed to

fulfill her matrimonial obligation and thus inflicted mental

cruelty upon the petitioner. The learned trial court has also not

considered that the applicant/opposite party was having an affair

with the said person prior to her marriage with the petitioner.

This fact was brought to the notice of the learned trial court on

30.10.2023 but the said fact has not been taken into

consideration and an erroneous order has been passed by the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
7/16

learned trial court. The learned senior counsel further submitted

that as the applicant/opposite party has been living in adultery,

the petitioner is not bound to maintain her. The learned senior

counsel further submitted that the applicant/opposite party has

herself deserted the petitioner and under the provisions of the

law, she cannot claim maintenance from the petitioner under

Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned

senior counsel also submitted that the learned trial court has not

taken into consideration the income and liability of the

petitioner while allowing the maintenance amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant/opposite party. The

petitioner has filed his affidavit of his assets and liabilities and

in the said affidavit the petitioner has specifically averred that

his monthly expenses are Rs.49,500/- which includes the rent

and expenses of his dependent old aged parents. The petitioner

has brought on record his salary slip of September, 2023 issued

by the Cipla Company and it shows his salary to be Rs. 52,000/-

per month. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to make

any payment to the applicant/opposite party. The learned senior

counsel referred to the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another,

(2021) 2 SCC 324 in support of his contention and submitted

that the applicant/opposite party has not disclosed her true
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
8/16

income and has made wrong averment of any income of her.

She has also not disclosed about the income of her parents as

she has been getting decent amount from her parents for her

maintenance. Moreover, the applicant/opposite party is a

working lady and she has been earning an income of

Rs.25,000/- which includes tuition fee and income from running

a beauty parlour. The learned senior counsel further submitted

that the applicant/opposite party is the only child of her parents

and she receives rental income from the property of her parents

whereas the petitioner has got no such property. However, the

learned trial court did not appreciate all these facts. The leaned

senior counsel also submitted that the petitioner is also ready for

onetime settlement. Thus, learned senior counsel submitted that

the impugned order of maintenance dated 08.01.2024 passed

against the petitioner is not sustainable and the same be set

aside.

08. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the opposite party vehemently contended that there is no merit

in the present revision petition and the same be dismissed with

cost. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned

order is proper and valid and the same has been passed by the

learned Principal Judge after due consideration of all the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
9/16

material available before him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in

the said order. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show any

illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order and

unless any such thing is brought to the notice of the court, this

Court could not interfere with the impugned order. The

learned counsel further submitted that unless some illegality is

shown in the impugned order, for mere challenge to the

factual aspects of the matter, the revision petition is not

maintainable.

09. The learned counsel further submitted that the

applicant/opposite party has been ousted from her matrimonial

home on account of demand of Rs.50,00,000/- by the petitioner

for purchasing a flat in Delhi and the matrimonial life of the

opposite party has been ruined on account of this demand. It is

not correct to say that after getting the notice in Marriage

Dissolution Case No. 88 of 2016, the opposite party filed a

criminal case against the petitioner and his family members.

Rather it was the petitioner who filed the case for dissolution of

marriage before a court in Gurgaon only with an oblique motive

of harassing the opposite party and expelling her from her

matrimonial home. The opposite party did not file any case

earlier and her father, being a respectable person of the society,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
10/16

tried to reconcile the matter. But the petitioner, taking advantage

of the said fact, filed Divorce Case No. 88 of 2016 in Gurgaon

which shows the malicious nature of the petitioner. The learned

counsel further submitted that the petitioner appears to be a

person of perverted mind. He levelled allegation against his wife

for having been in extra marital relationship. However, when the

petitioner and his witnesses were being examined in

maintenance case, neither the petitioner nor the other witnesses

stated anything about the love affair of applicant/opposite party

with some other person. The learned Principal Judge has taken

note of this fact and categorically mentioned that the petitioner

as OPW No. 3 and his father as OPW No. 2 in their cross-

examination stated that they could not tell the name of person

with whom the applicant/opposite party has got illicit

relationship. The learned Family Court has also observed that

the opposite party has not produced any evidence in support of

his contention of illicit relationship of the opposite party and she

was not living with the petitioner. The learned counsel thus

submitted that it was the petitioner who ousted the opposite

party from her matrimonial home on account of non-fulfillment

of his demand of Rs.50,00,000/-. Therefore, the opposite party

has been living away from the petitioner and there is sufficient
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
11/16

reason behind it. The learned counsel further submitted that

there is no merit in the allegation that the marriage was not

consummated between the petitioner and the opposite party. The

opposite party has resided in her matrimonial home for almost

two years where the petitioner used to come from Delhi but the

opposite party was being treated as maidservant in her

matrimonial home by her in-laws. Even then the opposite party

was always ready to go with her husband but the petitioner took

her with him only in order to secure bail for himself but was

never willing to take her back to her matrimonial home in order

to restore the relationship.

10. The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner has not been making payment of any farthing to the

opposite party in terms of the impugned order and reiterated that

there is no infirmity in the impugned order except the quantum

of maintenance has been fixed at the lower side even

considering the income of the petitioner to be Rs.54,349/- per

month as per his admission. So the maintenance amount could

not be less than Rs.18,000/- per month.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of

opposite party also relied on Rajnesh (supra) submitting that

the salary slip of the petitioner has been placed on record along
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
12/16

with the disclosure of assets and liabilities by way of affidavit

and the learned trial court did not follow the law laid down in

Rajnesh (supra) in true spirit and awarded only a meager sum

towards maintenance of the opposite party. The learned counsel

also referred to the case of Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain,

AIR 2017 SC 1640, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that it is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is

educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial

position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial. Therefore, the

Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and

the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the

applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his

support.

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to

the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. The

opposition to the order of maintenance awarded in favour of

opposite party is mainly on the ground that the opposite party

deserted the petitioner and has been refusing to stay in his

company. Further challenge to the order of learned Principal

Judge is on the ground that the marriage was never

consummated as the opposite party refused to establish physical

relationship with the petitioner. The order of the learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
13/16

Principal Judge has also been challenged on the ground that the

opposite party has been living in adultery as she was having

premarital illicit relationship with some person and continued

that relationship even after her marriage. There is also challenge

to the quantum of maintenance amount on the ground of income

and expenses of the petitioner.

13. From perusal of the record, I find that all the

grounds have been agitated by the petitioner before the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul. However, the learned

trial court considered all the grounds and did not find merit in

the contention of the petitioner. The learned trial court

disbelieved the allegation of adultery. Moreover, this claim of

the petitioner regarding adultery is yet to be proved in the

matrimonial proceeding instituted by the petitioner for use as a

defence to deny maintenance to the opposite party. The learned

trial court considered the material and evidence before it and

gave a negative finding on this aspect of the matter which

cannot be faulted. Similarly, whether desertion is justifiable or

not, the petitioner was required to prove this fact by leading

cogent evidence. But the petitioner failed in his duty cast upon

him. The learned trial court has also discussed this issue at

length and recorded its finding in favour of opposite party. It is
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
14/16

trite law that the revisional court would not go into

re-appreciation of facts to take a different view than the trial

court. Therefore, on contentious factual aspect the court would

accept the finding of the learned trial court as there appear to

manifest error of perversity.

14. So far as the claim of the petitioner regarding

consummation of marriage is concerned, it has been denied by

the opposite party and it has not been substantiated by the

petitioner. In any case, this defence could not have any

bearing on the award or refusal of maintenance to the opposite

party.

15. On the point of challenge to the quantum of

maintenance amount, I do not find any infirmity in the order of

learned trial court. The learned trial court took into

consideration the affidavit filed by the parties regarding their

assets and liability and also the evidence adduced in this regard

before the court. Admittedly, the petitioner had been working in

a private company and has brought on record the document

regarding his income and the learned Family Court accepted the

documents of the petitioner and held the income of the

petitioner to be around Rs.54,000/-. Therefore, the award of

Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party could not be said to be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
15/16

excessive. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that

the parents of the opposite party and the opposite party herself

are having handsome income. The claim of the petitioner about

the income of the opposite party and also opposite party earning

handsome sum by giving tuition and running a beauty parlour

has not been proved though onus was on the petitioner to prove

the income of the opposite party. On the other hand, the income

of the parents of the opposite party is immaterial for the purpose

of grant of maintenance to the opposite party. If the

applicant/opposite party is not having any independent income

to maintain herself, the petitioner being her husband is duty

bound to maintain her and the law mandates for grant of

maintenance amount so that the wife does not fall into

destitution or vagrancy.

16. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that

the petitioner has failed to show any material irregularity or

illegality in the impugned order. At the same time, this Court

would like to reiterate that under its revisional jurisdiction, is

not supposed to reappraise the facts, already considered by the

learned trial court, to record a different finding. In revisional

jurisdiction, this Court could not act as an appellate court and

could not sit over the judgment of the learned Family Court
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.257 of 2024 dt.06-04-2026
16/16

taking a different view.

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do

not find any merit in the instant revision petition and hence, the

same is dismissed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 03.02.2026
Uploading Date 06.04.2026
Transmission Date 06.04.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…