Patna High Court
RAJEEV KUMAR RANJAN @ RAJIV KR. RANJANversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The High Court held that the Family Court’s calculation of the petitioner’s income was unreasonable and accordingly modified the maintenance amounts, directing Rs 10,000 to the wife and Rs 5,000 to the child from the filing date to 18‑05‑2022 and Rs 18,000 to the wife thereafter, with the child’s amount unchanged.
Summary
The petitioner, a railway loco‑pilot, challenged a Family Court order that required him to pay Rs 20,000 per month to his wife and Rs 5,000 to his child under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that the court failed to consider his actual salary, his obligations to his mother, and the wife’s earning capacity, and also raised issues of alleged adultery and disputed paternity. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s gross income was higher, that the wife had no independent income, and that the court correctly ordered two‑thirds of his earnings as maintenance. The High Court found that the Family Court had not examined proper documentary evidence of income and had arbitrarily fixed the maintenance amount based on a presumed salary of Rs 50,000. Accordingly, the Court modified the maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs 5,000 to the child from the filing date until 18‑05‑2022, and thereafter Rs 18,000 to the wife with the child’s amount unchanged, and disposed of the revision petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court correctly assessed the petitioner’s income and expenses in fixing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Whether the wife’s earning capacity and alleged adultery affect the quantum of maintenance
- Whether the maintenance order should be modified retrospectively to reflect the petitioner’s actual income
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- Section 125 CrPC
- maintenance
- family law
- modification of maintenance order
- income assessment
- adultery
- parentage dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.406 of 2022
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar Ranjan @ Rajiv Kr. Ranjan S/o Bindeshwari Pandit R/o
village and P.O.- Bara, P.S.- Belhar, District- Banka. At Present posted as
Senior ALP (Mechanical), Division, Talwar, Orrisa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Punam Kumari W/o Rajeev Kumar Ranjan @ Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, D/o
Nilambuj Pandit R/o village- Bahjora, P.S.- Belhar, District- Banka
3. Pratik Raj S/o Rajeev Kumar Ranjan @ Rajiv Kr. Ranjan Under
guardianship of he mother Punam Kumari, R/o Village- Bahjora, P.S.-
Belhar, District- Banka
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
For the OPs. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
The present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Banka in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.
33 of 2019/Trial No. 258 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the
petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to his
wife/opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month for his
child/opposite party no. 3 as maintenance from the date of filing
of maintenance case, i.e., 15.03.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.406 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
2/5
opposite party no. 3 and the Misc. (Maintenance) Case No. 33
of 2019 has been filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned
family court erroneously ordered for payment of Rs. 20,000/-
per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to
the opposite party no. 3 from the date of filing of the case. The
learned family court did not consider the income of the
petitioner who is a Loco-Pilot in Railway. Apart from his own
expenses, the petitioner has also to look after his mother and
towards her maintenance, the petitioner has been making
payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Learned counsel further
submits that the learned family court did not take into
consideration the salary slip dated 07.01.2022 brought on record
showing the gross-pay to be Rs. 39,112/-, though petitioner had
been getting in-hand salary amount of Rs. 29,478/-. Learned
counsel further submits that the learned family court has also
not considered the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is a working
lady and is able to maintain her with her child. The learned
family court also failed to consider that opposite party no. 2 was
living in adulterous relationship which is the main ground of
dispute between the parties. The parentage of opposite party no.
3 is also denied by the petitioner but the same was not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.406 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
3/5
considered by the learned family court. Thus, the impugned
order suffers from a number of infirmities and the same be set
aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 vehemently contends that there is no merit in
the present revision petition. Learned counsel submits that, as
on date, the petitioner has been getting an amount of Rs.
72,152/- as gross-pay and net pay of Rs. 63,905/-. Learned
counsel further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is not a
working lady and she has no other source of income to maintain
herself or her child. The story of adultery and opposite party no.
3 not being born out her wedlock has been disbelieved by the
learned family court. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has got three bighas of land and is also having income
from the said land. Learned counsel further submits that the
learned family court considering the total income of the
petitioner, ordered the petitioner to pay his 2/3rd of his income
and the same order is perfectly legal and valid.
4. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that three bighas of land is with the mother of the
petitioner and during her lifetime, the petitioner cannot get the
benefit of the produce of the said land.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.406 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
4/5
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of record, I find that a salary slip for
the month of January, 2019 has also been brought on record,
showing gross-pay of the petitioner to be Rs. 41,723/- while net
pay stated to be Rs. 37,080/-. From the impugned order, it
transpires that the learned family court has discussed the
evidence of the parties at length and arrived at finding that the
petitioner has been getting monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. In
this manner, the learned family court came to decide that the
petitioner should pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.
5,000/- to his child. But, I think the calculation of income is not
reasonable, as no documentary evidence has been discussed
regarding the income of the petitioner. Moreover, when the
maintenance order has been passed since the date of filing of
miscellaneous case, the learned family court ought to have taken
into consideration the income of the petitioner for that period
and could not have randomly ordered for making payment
considering the current income of the petitioner. Now, the salary
slip of the year 2019 has been brought on record and taking into
consideration the income of the petitioner at that time and
further considering the income of the petitioner in the present, I
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.406 of 2022 dt.10-02-2026
5/5
think the suitable modification is required in the amount of
maintenance starting from the date of filing of miscellaneous
case till the date of passing of the final order, so that ends of
justice would be met. Hence, the order dated 18.05.2022 passed
by the learned family court, Banka is modified to the extent that
the petitioner is directed to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- per
month to his wife and 5,000/- per month to his child with effect
from the date of filing of miscellaneous case till 18.05.2022 and,
thereafter, from 19.05.2022, the petitioner will continue to pay
the maintenance amount of Rs. 18,000/- per month to his wife,
i.e., opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to his child
(opposite party no. 3).
7. With the aforesaid modification, the present
revision petition stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date 12.02.2026
Checking your session…