[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Dharam Deo Jha vs Pushpa Devi on 19 January, 2026
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.64 of 2025
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2280 of 2024
======================================================
Dharam Deo Jha, Gender-Male, Son of- Late Mahi Nath Jha, Resident of
Village--Dhengri, P.O-Bardaha, Police Station-Sikty, District-Araria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Pushpa Devi, Gender - Female, W/O-Sri Dharam Deo Jha, D/O-Sri Shiv
Kant Thakur, Resident of Mohalla Prabhat Colony, P.SK. Hai, District
Purnea.
2. Nidhi Kumari @ Nitu Kumari, Gender - Female, D/O-Sri Dharam Deo Jha
under the guardianship of her mother namely Smt. Pushpa Devi Resident of
Mohalla Prabhat Colony, P.S-K. Hai, District-Purnea.
3. The Bank of Baroda through Sri Debadatta Chand, Managing Director cum
CEO, Baroda House, Near Mandvi, P.B. No. 506, Vadodra, Gujarat.
4. Sri.B.Elango, Chief General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate
Centre, 7th Floor, G-Block, C-26, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra- East,
Mumbai 400051.
5. Sri, Ashwini Kumar, General Manager (Principal Nodal Officer), Bank of
Baroda Tower, Nr. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-38006, Gujarat.
6. Sri. Ajay N. Choski, Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office,
6th Floor, Bank of Baroda Tower, Nr.Law Garden, Ellis Bridge,
Ahmedabad- 380006, Gujarat.
7. The State of Bihar through Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. Nos. 3 to 6 : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court L.P.A No.64 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
2/6
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 19-01-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant - Dharam Deo Jha challenging the order dated
20.12.2024
passed in M.J.C. No. 2280 of 2024.
2. The appellant is the husband of respondent No. 1 -
Pushpa Devi and the respondent No. 2 - Nidhi Kumari is the
daughter of appellant and respondent No. 1. The marriage between
the appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year
1996 and respondent No. 2 was born out of the wedlock of the
appellant and respondent No. 1 on 09.08.2010. The appellant is
Senior Manager in the Bank of Baroda, Gujarat. The difference
cropped up between the husband and wife and a criminal
complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 - Pushpa Devi at
Purnea in the year 2001. Thereafter, a maintenance case was filed
by the respondent No. 1 in the year 2007, which was registered as
Maintenance Case No. 171 of 2007 at Purnea Civil Court, in
which judgment was pronounced on 20.12.2016 and the Family
Court, Purnea passed a judgment and directed the appellant to pay
monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8000/- (Rupees Eight
Thousand) in favour of the respondent No. 1 - Pushpa Devi and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.64 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month in favour of
respondent No. 2 - Nidhi Kumari.
3. In the year 2017, the appellant filed a matrimonial suit
at Araria which was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 116 of
2017 for dissolution of marriage. In 2017, the appellant challenged
the order of maintenance before this Court which was registered as
Cr. Revision No. 279 of 2017 and on 05.03.2018, this Court passed
an interim order directing payment of Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven
Thousand Five Hundred) to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Despite
interim order, no payments were made, however, some payments
were made on occasional basis.
4. On 09.05.2024, an interim order was passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court directing the Bank of Baroda to
deduct the current and arrears of maintenance from the bank
account of the appellant, however neither the Bank of Baroda nor
the appellant complied with the said order passed in the aforesaid
Criminal Revision Petition, for which on 09.07.2024 a contempt
petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide M.J.C. No.
2280 of 2024 for initiation of contempt proceedings against the
appellant and others as only a sum of Rs. 7500/- (Seven Thousand
and Five Hundred) was paid by the appellant after the order was
pronounced on 09.05.2024.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.64 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
5. On 12.08.2024, the Criminal Revision Petition was
dismissed on merits, whereafter on 20.12.2024, the impugned
order was passed in M.J.C. No. 2280 of 2024, directing payment
of arrears of maintenance as per the order dated 09.05.2024. As per
the order of this Court, the Bank of Baroda deducted an amount of
Rs. 2,47,500/- (Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred)
from the account of the appellant and paid it to the respondent
Nos.1 and 2. This L.P.A. has been filed, as already stated,
challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in the aforesaid
M.J.C. No. 2280 of 2024.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
since the matter has been finally adjudicated by this Court
invoking its revisional jurisdiction and the amount of maintenance
which was directed to be paid by the learned Family Judge, Purnea
has been affirmed, in view of provisions contained under Section
125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'), necessary steps should have been
taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for execution of such order,
hence the learned Single Judge was not justified in entertaining the
contempt proceedings and passing the order dated 20.12.2024.
7. Since we posed a pertinent question to the learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether any
Patna High Court L.P.A No.64 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
application in terms of the provisions contained under Section 125
(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed before the learned Family Judge,
the answer is in the affirmative and the learned counsel has stated
that Execution Case No. 35 of 2024 has been filed, which is sub
judice before the Execution Court, as has been stated in paragraph
No. 10 of the counter affidavit which has been filed by the
appellant in M.J.C. No. 2280 of 2024. However, the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the execution
case has been numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 2024
and the C.I.S. No. is 35 of 2024.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as
per the aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Judge which
has been affirmed by this Court, the total entitlement of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be around 12 lakhs, out of which a
sum of Rs. 6 lakhs has already been paid by the appellant. Since
the matter is sub judice before the competent court in execution
proceedings and the parties have already entered appearance, it is
expedient that necessary direction may be issued to the concerned
Court to dispose of the same at the earliest.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
has no serious objection to such submission which has been made
by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of such
Patna High Court L.P.A No.64 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
submission made at the Bar, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed
of directing the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea to
dispose of the execution case which arises out of the Maintenance
Case No. 171 of 2007, at the earliest, preferably within a period of
four weeks from the date of production/receipt of the certified
copy of this order.
10. In view of such order passed by this Court today, the
proceedings in M.J.C. petition stands closed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
