Patna High Court
Chandan Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.800 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Gaya
======================================================
Chandan Paswan, Son of Rampukar Paswan, R/O Village- Singhapur, P.S.-
Tikari, District- Gaya, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pushpa Prakash, Wife of Chandan Paswan, D/O Rampukar Paswan, R/O
Village- Singhapur, P.S.- Tikari, District- Gaya, Presently Residing At
Village- Jaitpur, P.S.- Haspura, District- Aurangabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sujit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhijit Gautam,
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend
to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
08.08.2022
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gaya in Maintenance Case No. 52/2022 filed by the opposite
party no.2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court
directed the petitioner to make payment of 12,000/-per month to
the opposite party no.2 on or before 15 th day of each month and
this payment was subject to further adjustment of interim
maintenance amount already paid to the opposite party no.2.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.800 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
3. Only ground to assail the order of the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court is that the learned trial court has
not taken into consideration the liabilities of the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner is constable in RPF. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to take
care of his two brothers and a daughter of his deceased sister.
The petitioner has also taken loan for which installments are to
be paid.
4. I have gone through the record and find from the
impugned order that the learned trial court took into
consideration the salary slip which was filed by the petitioner
and it has been noted that after all deductions, salary of the
petitioner was about Rs.41,000/-. The petitioner is supposed to
first take care of his wife and liabilities of his relatives would be
of secondary importance. Moreover, the brothers of the
petitioner cannot be considered as his dependents. Further
taking care of the daughter of his deceased sister could be a
pious obligation, but the same is not a statutory obligation on
the part of the petitioner. From the impugned order, it is also not
forthcoming that the submission of the petitioner about his
liabilities has not been considered by the learned trial court.
5. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid facts and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.800 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or
infirmity in the impugned order and hence, the order dated
08.08.2022 needs no interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.08.2025
Transmission Date 19.08.2025
