Patna High Court
Rinku Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 21 March, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.791 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Gaya
======================================================
Rinku Devi W/O Santosh Prasad Verma @ Santosh Prasad, D/O Jaygovind
Prasad Resident Of Mohalla- Bind (Near New Talab), P.O. And Post Chatra,
District- Chatra. (Jharkhand). At Present At Village- Fatehpur, P.S.- Fatehpur,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Santosh Prasad Verma @ Santosh Prasad S/o Late Babulal Sao Resident of
Mohalla- Bind (Near New Talab), P.O. and P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra.
(Jharkhand)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate
Mrs. Shweta Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
The present Criminal Revision Petition has been
preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated
28.03.2019
, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gaya in Miscellaneous Case No. 112 of 2016, whereby learned
Family Court has enhanced the monthly maintenance of Rs.
500/- to the petitioner to Rs. 1400/- per month under Section
127 Cr.PC.
2. O.P. No. 2 herein, who is ex-husband of the
petitioner, has filed one interlocutory application for challenging
the present impugned order saying that the enhancement is
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.791 of 2019 dt.21-03-2025
excessive and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
3. Here, at the outset, it would be pertinent to mention
that I.A. No. 01 of 2025, filed by O.P. No. 2 herein, is not
maintainable, because this is not a civil proceeding where
counter claim may be made by O.P. No. 2. If O.P. No. 2 is
aggrieved by the impugned order, he has liberty to file separate
Criminal Revision petition.
4. Hence, I.A. No. 01 of 2025, filed by O.P. No. 2, is
dismissed as not maintainable.
5. The factual background of the present revision
petition is that the petitioner was married to O.P. No. 2 in the
year, 1996 and she was blessed with two children out of the
wedlock. But on account of marriage running into rough
weather, the petitioner preferred one application under Section
125 Cr.PC for her maintenance as well as maintenance of her
two minor children in the year, 2001, wherein learned Family
Court had directed O.P. No.2 to pay maintenance to the
petitioner-wife and her two minor children @ Rs. 500/- per
month each. Subsequently, the maintenance amount was
reduced for the two minor children @ Rs. 450/- per month each
by this Court in Criminal Revision petition.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.791 of 2019 dt.21-03-2025
6. Subsequently, divorce proceeding was initiated by
the O.P. No. 2 -husband, wherein divorce was decreed
dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2
vide judgment dated 17.04.2004 passed in Matrimonial Title
Suit No. 86 of 2000 by the Court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chatra, situated in the State of Jharkhand.
However, no permanent alimony was granted by the District
Court. Thereafter, divorce decree was challenged by the
petitioner-wife in the High Court of Jharkhand, wherein vide
judgment dated 05.12.2016, High Court of Jharkhand upheld the
decree of divorce, however, granted permanent alimony of Rs. 7
lac to the wife payable by her ex-husband. However, by specific
order, it was held by High Court of Jharkhand that monthly
maintenance awarded by Family Court of Bihar payable by ex-
husband to the petitioner/ex-wife will continue.
7. The O.P. No. 2-husband challenged the judgment of
High Court of Jharkhand in the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to
the continuation of the monthly maintenance to the ex-wife even
after payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 7 lac. However,
Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP declining to interfere in
the judgment of Jharkhand High Court and hence, the petitioner
was getting monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month from
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.791 of 2019 dt.21-03-2025
her husband even after decree of divorce and despite getting
permanent alimony of Rs. 7 lac in the year, 2016.
8. Subsequently, in the same year of 2016, the
petitioner-wife filed Miscellaneous Case No. 112 of 2016 in the
Family Court, Gaya under Section 127 Cr.PC for enhancement
of her monthly maintenance. During proceeding under Section
127 Cr.PC in Miscellaneous Case No. 112 of 2016, evidence
was adduced by both the parties and thereafter, monthly
maintenance payable to the children were stopped, because they
had become major. But monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/-
payable by O.P. No. 2 to the petitioner was enhanced from Rs.
500/- to Rs. 1400/- per month.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the
Family Court in Miscellaneous Case No. 112 of 2016, the
present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner seeking further enhancement.
10. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1400/- per
month is inadequate and insufficient for meeting her expenses in
this day of inflation. It is also on record that O.P. No. 2 - ex-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.791 of 2019 dt.21-03-2025
husband of the petitioner is a Goldsmith, running a jewelry
shop.
12. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the
petitioner submitting that prayer of the petitioner for
enhancement is totally unjustified. In fact, she is not entitled to
get any enhancement, because in the same year, prior to the
impugned order, she has got Rs. 7 lac towards her permanent
alimony as per the order of High Court of Jharkhand and it does
not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that she is destitute and
vagrant and unable to maintain herself. She has already got Rs.
13. They further submit that subsequent to divorce
between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2, O.P. No. 2 has entered
into second marriage and second wife is still alive and he has
got four children out of the new wedlock. As such, number of
dependents upon O.P. No. 2 has risen and in fact, the
maintenance should have been reduced rather than enhanced in
view of the increase of the number of dependents upon O.P. No.
2, together with the fact that in the same year prior to the filing
of this enhancement petition, she has got Rs. 7 lac from O.P.
No.2.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.791 of 2019 dt.21-03-2025
14. I considered the submissions advanced by the
parties and perused the materials on record.
15. I find that there is no cogent evidence on record to
show how much income of O.P. No. 2 has increased, except to
show that O.P. No.2 is a Goldsmith and running a jewelry shop.
But this fact was on record even at the time of passing the
previous maintenance order. On the other hand, I find that
subsequent to the divorce, O.P. No. 2 has second wife along
with four additional children.
16. Hence, I find no merit in this case. Accordingly,
the present petition is dismissed.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
shoaib/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 24.03.2025.
Transmission Date 24.03.2025.
