Patna High Court
Lal Bachchan Mandal vs Madhu Kumari on 21 March, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.476 of 2022
======================================================
Lal Bachchan Mandal son of Shri Baldeo Mandal, Resident of Village and
P.O. Parghari, P.S.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Madhu Kumari Wife of Shri Lal Bachchan Mandal and D/o Shri Jai Kant
Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O. Bakudih, P.S.- Taljhari, Dist- Sahibganj
(Jharkhand).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate
Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
10.05.2022
passed in Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Case No.
81 of 2019 under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder interim maintenance
amount of Rs.7,000/- was allowed in favour of the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order has been passed without consideration of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.476 of 2022 dt.21-03-2025
facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent is not the
wife of the petitioner and the learned trial court has not
considered this fact and passed the impugned order directing
the petitioner to make payment of Rs.7,000/- per month to the
respondent which is completely unjust. Learned counsel
further submits that the respondent claimed that her marriage
was solemnized on 17.02.2016 and thereafter she started
staying with the petitioner. But the document sought by the
petitioner under Right to Information Act shows the
respondent continuously pursued her Ph.D. from 01.01.2016 to
31.03.2016 which falsifies the case of the respondent that she
got married with the petitioner on 17.02.2016 and went to
Punjab with him where they stayed together. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioner filed Matrimonial Case No.
171 of 2017 under Section 12(1)(b)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for declaration of the marriage to be null and void.
Learned further submits that the said case was not dismissed
on merit rather it was observed that the petitioner has all along
denying any marriage taking place but as the petition was filed
under Section 12(1)(b)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act for declaring
the marriage null and void, the said matrimonial case was
dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Thus, learned
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.476 of 2022 dt.21-03-2025
counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances when the marriage itself is in dispute, the
petitioner could not be directed to make payment of interim
maintenance to the respondent. For this reason, the impugned
order is illegal and needs to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in
the impugned order and the same needs no interference by this
Court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial
court considered all the contention of the petitioner and
thereafter allowed the application for interim maintenance and
the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. I have considered the rival submission of the
parties and also perused the record. The petitioner is aggrieved
by the impugned order for the reason that as per claim of the
petitioner, respondent is not his wife. But as submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of
Matrimonial Case No. 171 of 2017, no further case for
declaration of status of the respondent not being the wife of
the petitioner, has been filed. Even if it is accepted that earlier
matrimonial case was dismissed on the ground of
maintainability, unless the petitioner gets the declaration of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.476 of 2022 dt.21-03-2025
respondent not being his wife from a competent court, the
scope for consideration of disputed facts by this Court is very
limited. Further, the contention of the petitioner about
marriage not taking place and the respondent making a wrong
submission in the light of right to information paper, the said
contention is about appreciation of facts and the disputed
question of facts could only be considered by the learned trial
court and would not fall in domain of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is an interim order
and the petitioner has got all opportunity to raise all issues
before the learned trial court and allow it to pass the final
orders.
6. Further more, all the issues raised before this Court
have already been raised by the petitioner before the learned
trial court and after considering the said facts, the learned trial
court allowed the interim maintenance by passing a speaking
order and it is well settled that this Court would not
re-appreciate the fact to arrive at a different finding while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
7. In the light of the discussion made hereinbefore,
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.476 of 2022 dt.21-03-2025
is affirmed. Accordingly, the present petition stands
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
