Recently, the Patna High Court reaffirmed that a husband cannot evade his statutory obligation to pay maintenance without first securing a legal finding that the wife deserted him without justification. Deciding a challenge to a Family Court order directing monthly maintenance to the wife, the Court underscored that allegations of desertion carry no weight unless supported by a clear declaration under matrimonial law.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose out of a maintenance claim filed by the wife, who stated that her husband had neglected and refused to provide for her despite earning a stable income. The Family Court assessed the husband’s salary and awarded monthly maintenance in favour of the wife. The husband challenged the order, asserting that his wife had willingly left the matrimonial home and refused reconciliation, and therefore was not entitled to maintenance.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The husband argued that the Family Court ignored material facts on record. He stated that during earlier reconciliation proceedings, the wife had declined to resume cohabitation, and her conduct had led to the breakdown of the relationship. He also highlighted that he had already approached a matrimonial court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, asserting that the wife had voluntarily abandoned the marriage. On this basis, he claimed that she was not legally entitled to maintenance.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Counsel appearing for the wife contended that the husband’s challenge was unfounded. It was argued that the Family Court had correctly assessed the husband’s income, recording his net monthly salary at over ₹90,000, and granted maintenance accordingly. The wife’s counsel emphasised that disputes regarding willingness to live together were irrelevant for adjudicating a petition under Section 125 CrPC, particularly in the absence of any judicial finding that the wife had deserted the petitioner. It was further argued that stray observations made in bail or interlocutory proceedings could not determine her entitlement.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the husband’s principal defence rested on the allegation that the wife had voluntarily deserted him. However, the Bench clarified that, “Unless the petitioner secures a declaration in the pending matrimonial proceedings that the opposite party has, in fact, deserted him without sufficient cause, the finding of desertion cannot be presumed for the purpose of denying maintenance.”
The Court emphasised that any claim regarding the wife’s unwillingness to reconcile must be examined by the competent matrimonial court, and until such adjudication, the Family Court’s assessment remains valid.
Further, the Court observed that the maintenance awarded, approximately 25% of the husband’s net income, is consistent with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. It reiterated that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it would not re-evaluate factual findings of the trial court unless a clear illegality or perversity is demonstrated.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no error in the Family Court’s determination, the Court upheld the order directing the husband to pay ₹22,000 per month as maintenance. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the husband to seek modification of the maintenance order in the event that a competent court later holds that the wife’s conduct amounts to unjustified desertion.
Case Title: Vivek Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2025
Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Arbind Kumar Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Surendra Prasad Singh (A.P.P.), Krishna Chandra
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
