Patna High Court
Batul Kumar VermaversusKiran Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The High Court held that no contempt of court can be found and dismissed the contempt application, directing the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the Family Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Batul Kumar Verma, sought contempt proceedings against his wife, Kiran Devi, alleging that she violated a 2010 settlement order which required the husband to remit 50% of his salary to her after certain deductions. The court noted that earlier contempt applications and a writ petition related to the same settlement had been dismissed or disposed of, with the court directing the petitioner to approach the Family Court for maintenance. The petitioner’s claim that the wife’s non‑payment constituted contempt was rejected because the issue pertained to a fresh cause of action and was pending before the Family Court. The court also held that the retirement of the husband could not be a ground to modify the 2010 order in a contempt proceeding. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to seek relief through the appropriate family law forum.
Issues considered
- Whether the wife’s alleged non‑payment of the agreed salary share amounts to contempt of the High Court’s 2010 order.
- Whether the petitioner can invoke contempt when the dispute is pending before the Family Court.
- Whether the retirement of the husband justifies modification of the 2010 settlement order.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- maintenance
- family law
- settlement agreement
- pension
- modification of decree
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1346 of 2025
In
Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2009
======================================================
Batul Kumar Verma S/O late Ish Chandra Narain Varma, R/O Village
Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, P.O. Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur, at present
residing at Chitragupta Nagar Siwan, P.S. Town, District- Siwan, as well as
Bhagwanpur and retired from Sorting Assistant in R.M.S. C Division Gaya,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Kiran Devi W/O Batul Kumar Verma, D/O Sachidanand Sinha, at present
residing at Flat No. 205 Maheshwari Kunz Apartment, Road No. 06, East
Patel Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kriti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Dhanander Choubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 20-01-2026
Following is the relief sought for in the present contempt
application:-
Patna High Court MJC No.1346 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
2/5
“1. That this application is being filed on behalf
of the aforesaid petitioner for initiation of contempt
proceeding against O.P. No. 01 who has knowingly
violated/disobeyed the order of this Hon’ble High Court
passed in M.A. No. 772/2009 dated 27/08/2010 by a division
bench of this Hon’ble High Court ….”
2. Before coming to the merits of the case, it is
necessary to mention some relevant facts that M.A. No. 772 of
2009 was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2010 on the basis of a
settlement arrived between both the parties, Para-10 of the said
order records the same, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“10. Only for the sake of clarification the salient
features of the agreement are summarized hereinbelow.
(i) The marriage between the parties shall be
deemed to be subsisting.
(ii) Parties have agreed to live separately and not
to interfere with each others private lives.
(iii) They have agreed not to pursue any civil or
criminal case against each other.
(iv) The husband shall ensure that the competent
authority of his Department, Railway Mail Service shall send
every month to the wife 50% of his monthly salary after
deducting only Rs. 6260/- per month which is presently being
deducted till the scooter loan and such other loans are
liquidated. It is also agreed that the deduction shall include
any compulsory deduction on account of income tax over the
salary income.”
3. Thereafter, O.P. No. 1 (wife of the petitioner) filed
M.J.C. No. 1896 of 2021 arising out of M.A. No. 772 of 2009. The
Patna High Court MJC No.1346 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
3/5
said contempt application was disposed of vide order dated
30.11.2023. Following observations were made in Para-5 & Para-6
of the said order:-
“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that retired employee has not been paid pension on account of
his attaining age of superannuation and retired from service
in the month of June, 2023. This issue cannot be adjudicated
in contempt of Court petition that apart it is a fresh cause of
action to the employee or to the petitioner. Ordinary, the
State-Central Government will not stop pension. If it is not
paid the concerned authority is hereby directed to examine
and redress the same in this regard. The employee is hereby
directed to furnish a detailed representation in so far as
fixation of retiral benefits and pension if such application or
representation is submitted the concerned authority will
examine and pass appropriate order within a reasonable
period of time.
6. With the above observation, the present MJC
stands dropped. The above grievance is required to be
agitated by retired employee only.”
4. Subsequently, a second M.J.C. Case No. 180 of 2024
was filed seeking modification of sub para 4 of para No. 10 of the
previous order dated 27.08.2010 passed in M.A. No. 772/2009.
The said application was dismissed with the following
observation:-
“2. Petitioner has sought for modification of the
aforementioned paragraph on the score that petitioner has
attained his age of superannuation and retired from service in
the year 2023. The later development cannot be taken into
Patna High Court MJC No.1346 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
4/5
consideration for the purpose of rectification of the order
passed in the year 2010. Accordingly, the present M.J.C. No.
180 of 2024 for rectification of the order stands dismissed.”
5. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.
No. 11992 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated
19.08.2024 with the following observation:-
“2. After some arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition,
however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such
other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under
the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.
3. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed off.”
6. In pursuance to the order dated 19.08.2024 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 11992 of 2024, O.P. No. 1 (wife of the petitioner)
filed a Maintenance Case No. 334 of 2024 before the Family
Court, Patna, seeking maintenance which is pending for
adjudication.
7. In view of the above facts, this Court finds no reason
to pass any order in the present contempt application. The
appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to appear before the
Family Court, Patna and raise all his grievances for adjudication in
accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the present contempt application stands
disposed of.
Patna High Court MJC No.1346 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
5/5
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…