Patna High Court
KUNDAN MANJHIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The impugned maintenance order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh proceedings with both parties given the opportunity to present evidence and cross‑examine witnesses.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Manjhi, filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay Rs.12,000 per month as maintenance to Babi Devi, whom he claims is not his wife. He argued that he was not given a chance to file a written objection, present evidence, or cross‑examine witnesses, and that the trial was therefore incomplete. The respondent State contended that the petitioner himself failed to file a written objection and therefore no fresh trial was warranted. The Court held that granting maintenance without a full inquiry into the marital status would be a grave injustice and set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the Family Court for proceedings from the stage of filing written objections, with both parties allowed to adduce evidence. The Court also ordered interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month pending the fresh trial, imposed costs on the petitioner, and directed the Family Court to conclude the matter by 31 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court order granting maintenance to Babi Devi should be set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the petitioner to object and present evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim that he is not married to Babi Devi warrants a fresh trial to determine marital status before maintenance can be awarded.
- Whether interim maintenance should continue pending the remanded proceedings.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- criminal revision
- marital status
- interim maintenance
- default
- remand
- costs
- contempt
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.543 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Saran
======================================================
Kundan Manjhi, Son of Ram Chandra Manjhi, Resident of Village - Kauru
Dharu, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Babi Devi, D/o Sri Bhola Ram, Resident of Village - Kauru Dharu, P.S.-
Manjhi, Dist.- Saran.
3. Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police- 5, Patna Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
11 12-01-2026 The present Criminal Revision Petition has been
filed for setting aside the impugned final order dated
02.07.2021, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Saran at Chhapra, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to
pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2, Baby
Devi towards her maintenance as his wife since the date of
filing the maintenance petition i.e 13.07.2010 and the arrear
amount has been also directed to be paid within three months of
date of passing the order.
2. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioner herein could not file his written
objection to the maintenance petition, nor could he adduce his
own evidence, nor could he cross-examine the witnesses of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
Opposite Party No.2, who was the Petitioner before the Family
Court. He further claims that as a matter of fact, there is no
marriage solemnized between the Petitioner herein and the O.P.
No.2 herein, Baby Devi and it would be grave injustice, if the
full fledged trial is not conducted by learned Family Court for
deciding the maintenance petition as filed by the O.P. No.2
before the Family Court.
3. However, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits
that the Petitioner himself has preferred not to file his written
objection to the maintenance petition, despite having appeared
before the Family Court, and hence, there is no reason to set
aside the order and remand the matter for fresh trial before the
Family court. It is a fault on the part of the Petitioner himself,
who has not filed written objection before the Family Court or
adduced his evidence.
4. However, in reply to such submission, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has already filed his
reply to application for interim maintenance. And thereafter, the
matter was dismissed for default on account of failure of the
Petitioner, Baby Devi to attend the maintenance petition and
thereafter, for restoring the maintenance petition, no notice was
received by the Petitioner. Hence, he was not aware of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
proceeding going on after dismissal of the Petition for default.
5. I considered the submission advanced by both the
parties and perused the material on record.
6. In view of the submission that Baby Devi is not the
wife of the Petitioner herein, it would be grave injustice to grant
maintenance in such a way as granted by learned Family Court.
Justice demands full inquiry by the Family Court after
completion of pleading and evidence of both the parties so that
no injustice is caused to either of the parties.
7. Hence, the present impugned order is set aside, and
remanded to the concerned Family Court for proceeding from
the stage of filing written objection by the Petitioner herein,
who was the Opposite Party before the Family Court and
thereafter, both the parties will be given opportunity to adduce
their evidence and cross-examine the witnesses of each other
and only thereafter, the Family Court will pass final order after
hearing the submissions of both the parties.
8. However, during pendency of the matter before the
Family Court, the Petitioner herein will keep paying Rs.15,000/-
per month to Baby Devi as interim maintenance, which will be
subject to adjustment of the final order. In case, it is found that
Baby Devi is not the wife of the Petitioner, then the whole
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
money will be liable to be recovered from her.
9. I also find that it would be just to direct the
Petitioner to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- for the present petition filed
before this Court. He will be also required to pay Rs.1,000/- on
each and every date before the Family Court towards litigation
cost. The Family Court is also directed to conclude the
maintenance proceeding on or before the 31st May, 2026, failing
which, contempt proceeding will be initiated against the Family
Court. In case, maintenance case is not concluded within the
stipulated time. If required, Family Court may run the case on
day to day basis.
10. The present petition stands disposed of,
accordingly.
11. T.C.R. be sent back to the Family Court concerned
without any delay and both the parties are directed to appear
before the Family Court on 02.02.2026 at 10:30 AM and office
is directed to ensure that the file is sent back to the Court
concerned before that date.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
U T
Checking your session…