Patna High Court
Sagun Kumar ChandanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court held that only the wife and minor son are dependents and directed the husband to pay Rs.13,000 per month to the wife and Rs.12,000 per month to the son, totaling Rs.25,000, along with Rs.40,000 litigation costs.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard two criminal revision petitions challenging a Family Court order that granted maintenance of Rs.10,000 to the wife, Priyanka Kumari, and Rs.5,000 to her minor son, Rudra Pratap Singh. The husband, Sagun Kumar Chandan, argued that his income of Rs.45,000 per month (later shown to be Rs.50,897) and his dependents (parents and sister) made the award excessive, while the wife contended that the award was insufficient given the husband's actual earnings and that his parents were not dependent on him. The court examined the evidence, including the husband's salary slip showing a gross salary of about Rs.59,603 and the fact that his father owned a transport business, concluding that only the wife and minor son were dependents. Accordingly, the court increased the maintenance to Rs.13,000 for the wife and Rs.12,000 for the son, totaling Rs.25,000 per month, and ordered payment of Rs.40,000 litigation costs. The revision filed by the wife and son was allowed, and the husband's revision was dismissed, with the order to be executed from the date of the original maintenance petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is adequate in view of the husband's actual income and dependents.
- Whether the husband's claim of lower income and additional dependents (parents, sister) is credible.
- Whether the husband's parents and sister can be treated as dependents for purposes of maintenance.
- Whether the revision petitions can modify the quantum of maintenance, award arrears, and increase litigation costs.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- dependents
- revision
- spousal support
- minor child support
- income assessment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.37 of 2024
======================================================
Sagun Kumar Chandan, son of Awadesh Singh @ Awadesh Kumar Singh, r/o
Village- Dumari, P.S.- Parwalpur, Dist-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari, wife of Sagun Kumar Chandan, D/o- Late Satyendra
Singh, r/o Village- Dumari, P.S. Parwalpur Dist-Nalanda, P/A- Vill-
Kakhaura, P.S.- Shakurabad, Dist- Jehanabad
3. Rudra Pratap Singh, son of Sagun Kumar Chandan, r/o Village- Dumari,
P.S.- Parwalpur, Dist-Nalanda, P/A- Vill- Kakhaura P.S.- Shakurabad Dist-
Jehanabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 269 of 2024
======================================================
1. Priyanka Kumari, W/o Sagun Kumar Chandan and D/o Late Satyendra
Singh, R/o village - Kakhaura, P.O. - Pandaul, P.S. - Shakurabad, Distt. -
Jehanabad
2. Rudra Pratap , S/o Sagun Kumar Chandan, R/o village - Kakhaura, P.O. -
Pandaul, P.S. - Shakurabad, Distt. - Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sagun Kumar Chandan, S/o Awadhesh Singh @ Awadhesh Kumar Singh,
R/o village - Dumari, P.S. - Parwalpur, Distt. - Nalanda
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 37 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Bhaskar Anand, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
For the Respondents : Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Kaushik Deo, Advocate.
Mr. MriganK Shekhar, Advocate.
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 269 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Kaushik Deo, Advocate.
Mr. Mrigank Shekhar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Pd. Singh, APP
For the Respondents : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Bhaskar Anand, Advocate.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.37 of 2024(21) dt.09-02-2026
2/6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
21 09-02-2026 Both these revision petitions have been preferred
against the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad, in Maintenance Case
No. 27 of 2022 whereby Priyanka Kumari and her minor son
Rudra Pratap Singh have been awarded maintenance @
Rs.10,000/- and 5,000/- per month respectively in addition to
litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by Sagun Kumar
Chandan.
2. Both Priyanka Kumari as well as her son Rudra
Pratap Singh have filed the Revision Petition No. 269 of 2024
for higher quantum of maintenance whereas Criminal Revision
No. 37 of 2024 has been filed by Sagun Kumar Chandan who is
undisputedly husband of Priyanka Kumari and father of Rudra
Pratap Singh. He has filed his Criminal Revision on account of
being aggrieved by the quantum of the maintenance awarded to
his wife and minor son, submitting that in view of the income as
proved by his wife and son on record before the Family Court,
the quantum of maintenance is on higher side because as per
record before the Family Court, his monthly income is only
Rs.45,000/- whereas his parents are also dependent upon him
besides his wife and minor son. His sister is already self
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.37 of 2024(21) dt.09-02-2026
3/6
employed and she may not be deemed to be dependent on him.
As such, the quantum of maintenance on higher side is not
sustainable.
3. However, learned counsel for Priyanka Kumari as
well as Rudra Pratap Singh submits that in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the materials on record, the
quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court,
Jehanabad, in favour of Priyanka Kumari and Rudra Pratap
Singh is on the lower side. He further submits that father,
besides having cultivable land, is running transport business by
having a truck. As such, father and mother cannot be deemed to
be dependent upon Sagun Kumar Chandan. He refers to the
deposition of Sagun Kumar Chandan wherein in his cross-
examination, he has admitted that his father has purchased one
truck. He further submits that Sagun Kumar Chandan has
concealed his real monthly salary. In his cross-examination on
25.07.2023 he has clearly deposed that his monthly salary is
only Rs.45,000/- and he would file his salary slip on record, but
he has not filed the same on record and as per salary slip of
June, 2023 as filed in Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2024, Sagun
Kumar Chandan is a Constable in Central Industrial Security
Force and his gross salary is Rs.59,603/- and after deduction, he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.37 of 2024(21) dt.09-02-2026
4/6
was getting Rs.50,897/-. As such, Sagun Kumar Chandan has
clearly lied to the Court and misled the Court on facts regarding
his income. As such, he has not come to the Court with clean
hands. Hence, he deserves no relief from the Court.
4. As such, monthly maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- to
Priyanka Kumari and Rudra Pratap Singh is not sufficient to
sustain themselves and at least they are entitled to get
Rs.25,000/- (13,000/- to wife and 12,000/- to minor son) per
month as maintenance. He also submits that till date even
Rs.5,56,000/- is due towards arrears of the maintenance in terms
of the impugned order. Even total litigation cost has not been
paid. Out of 25,000, only Rs. 21,000/- has been paid as litigation
cost whereas there is no stay of the impugned order by this
Court. He further submits that as of today, his monthly gross
salary is Rs.75,053/- including hardship allowance because he
is posted in 7th RES BN Kistwar.
5. I considered the submissions advanced by both
the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. As per the evidence on record, I find that father
of Sagun Kumar Chandan owns truck and as such, he has
transport business. It means he has source of income to sustain
himself and his wife. As such, parents of Sagun Kumar
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.37 of 2024(21) dt.09-02-2026
5/6
Chandan could not be deemed to be dependent upon him. Even
his sister is already in job since 2018 as per statement of Sagun
Kumar Chandan in his cross-examination. As such, only
dependents are Priyanka Kumari (wife) and Rudra Pratap Singh
(minor son). As such, out of gross salary of Rs.50,000/-,
Rs.15,000/- per months towards maintenance of Priyanka
Kumari and Rudra Pratap Singh together is a pittance and it
requires to be enhanced in the interest of justice.
7. Hence, Sagun Kumar Chandan is directed to pay
Rs.13,000/- per month to Priyanka Kumari and Rs.12,000/- to
her minor child Rudra Pratap Singh. In other words, Sagun
Kumar Chandan is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- altogether to
Priyanka Kumari and her minor son Rudra Pratap Singh towards
their maintenance, besides litigation cost of Rs.40,000/- incurred
by Priyanka Kumari and Rudra Pratap Singh in this Court.
8. I further find that this order will be applicable
from 06.02.2020 i.e. from the date of filing of the maintenance
petition before the Family Court.
9. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 269 of 2024 stands
allowed whereas Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2024 stands dismissed.
10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Family Court along with Trial Court Records and Family
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.37 of 2024(21) dt.09-02-2026
6/6
Court, Jehanabad, is directed to execute the order with all
sincerity seeing the urgency of the maintenance payable to
Priyanka Kumari and her minor son Rudra Pratap Singh. The
Family Court, Jehanabad, is also directed to send a copy of this
order to the controlling authority of Sagun Kumar Chandan
where he is working so that the amount should be realized from
his salary account.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…