RAJESH SHARMAversusIBHA DEVI

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CRIMINAL REVISION No.460 of 2021
                               Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Rajesh Sharma, S/o Late Dina Sharma @ Deenanath Mistri, Resident of
                 Village-Purani Etwarpur, Patna Gaya Road, Near Ware House Parsa Bazar,
                 PS- Parsa Bazar, District Patna.

                                                                          ... ... Petitioner
                                                Versus
                 Ibha Devi, W/o Rajesh Sharma, Resident of Mohalla-Katari Hill Road, P.S-
                 Chandauti, District-Gaya.

                                                            ... ... Respondent
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Gaurav Govind, Advocate
                 For the Respondent      :        Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                                  Ms. Rupali Singh, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Anmol Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   09-01-2026                    The present Criminal Revision Petition has been

                   preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned final order

                   dated 22.11.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family

                   Court, Gaya, Bihar in maintenance case bearing Miscellaneous

                   Case No.47 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.PC, whereby, the

                   Petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the

                   sole Respondent/Wife, Ibha Devi towards her maintenance. It

                   further transpires that during the Maintenance case, the

                   Petitioner has appeared and has filed even show cause/reply to

                   the maintenance petition, but thereafter, he left the pairwi in the

                   case and he could neither cross-examine witnesses of the wife,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.460 of 2021(6) dt.09-01-2026
                                             2/4




          who is the Opposite Party herein, nor he could examine his own

          witnesses.

                       2. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

          that as a matter of fact, the advocate engaged by him in the case

          did not inform him about next date of the hearing. Hence, he

          could not attend the matter or adduce his evidence or cross-

          examine the witnesses of the Opposite Party/Wife. Hence, he

          may be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the

          wife and adduce his own evidence.

                       3. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2,

          however, opposes the prayer of the Petitioner submitting that

          there is no reason to allow the Petitioner to adduce his evidence

          or cross-examine the witnesses of the Opposite Party because he

          had left to attend the matter of the maintenance case voluntarily.

          He was aware of the proceeding. Hence, there is no reason to

          give any opportunity to the Petitioner as he is praying for. She

          further submits that despite such order, not even a single paisa

          has been paid by the Petitioner/husband to the Opposite

          Party/Wife till date.

                       4. I considered the submission advanced by the parties

          and perused the material on record.

                       5. I find that the Petitioner appeared in the Family
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.460 of 2021(6) dt.09-01-2026
                                             3/4




          Court to oppose the Maintenance Petition and filed his reply to

          the Maintenance Petition but, thereafter, he neither cross-

          examined the witnesses of the wife, nor did he examine his own

          witnesses against the Maintenance Petition. As such, there is no

          evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner on record. As a

          matter of fact, there is no technical reason to accept the prayer

          of the Petitioner.

                          6. However, seeing the practicality of the case and

          broad interest of justice, he deserves one opportunity to cross-

          examine the witnesses of wife and adduce his own evidence,

          subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Wife/Opposite

          Party herein, and payment of Rs.3,500/- per month during

          pendency of the Petition as interim maintenance if it is

          remanded to the Family Court for passing fresh order. He will

          also be liable to pay Rs.5,00/- to the Opposite Party/Wife

          towards litigation cost on every date before the Family Court.

                       7. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, subject to

          payment of Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Party/Wife by the

          Petitioner towards litigation cost and the matter is remanded to

          the Family Court for proceeding from the stage of cross-

          examination of wife and her witnesses by the Petitioner/husband

          and thereafter, the Family Court will give opportunity to the
            Patna High Court CR. REV. No.460 of 2021(6) dt.09-01-2026
                                                         4/4




                      Petitioner to examine his own witnesses and these witnesses

                      will be also cross-examined by the Wife. Final order will have

                      to passed by the Family Court within six months, if required, the

                      Family Court may run the Court on day to day basis and during

                      the pendency of this Petition after remand before the Family

                      Court, the Petitioner husband will pay Rs.3,500/- per month as

                      interim maintenance to the Wife and litigation cost of Rs. 5,00/-

                      on every date before the Family Court besides the payment of

                      Rs.5,000/- cost for the present proceeding.

                                   8. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the

                      matter is remanded accordingly.

                                   9.    The      interim       maintenance       paid   by    the

                      Petitioner/Husband will be subject to adjustment against the

                      Final Order.

                                   10. The        present      petition stands      disposed   of,

                      accordingly.



                                                                        (Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-

U     T