AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 10-08-2026 Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner through video conferencing, Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, the learned APP for the State and Mr. N.K. Agarwal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the OP Nos. 2 & 3.
The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura in Maintenance Case No. 83 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned Family Court allowed the maintenance petition of OP Nos. 2 & 3 filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month to OP No. 2 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to OP No. 3 from the date of filing of the maintenance petition, i.e. 22.07.2013. The learned Family Court further directed the petitioner to pay the arrear amount of maintenance allowance within a period of two years in equal installments to OP No. 2 in her bank account.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that OP No. 2 & 3 filed the maintenance case no. 83 of 2013 before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura against the petitioner. The OP No. 2 claimed that she married the petitioner in August, 2012 and out of this wedlock, a son was born who is OP No. 3. The OP No. 2 made allegation of demand or dowry and alleged attempt on her life on non-fulfillment of this demand. The OP No. 2 further alleged about the petitioner marrying another lady. The said maintenance case was dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2019 on the ground that OP No. 2 failed to prove that she was the legally married wife of the petitioner. Thereafter OP No. 2 preferred Cr. Revision No. 1589 of 2019 before this Court and the learned co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 07.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1589 of 2019 set aside the order dated 04.05.2019 in Maintenance Case No. 83 of 2013, wherein the learned co-ordinate Bench further declared the OP No. 2 to be the legally married wife of the petitioner and it further directed the learned Family Court to adjudicate the quantum of maintenance on the basis of facts available on record. Pursuant thereto, the learned Family Court, Madhepura vide order dated 07.02.2025, directed the grant of maintenance to the OP Nos. 2 and 3 as already mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come before this Court in the present criminal revision petition.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as it is bad in law. When the maintenance case was remanded to the learned Family Court, after setting aside the order dated 04.05.2019, there was specific direction of the learned co-ordinate Bench that the learned trial Court was only to adjudicate the quantum of maintenance, but the learned trial Court has passed a lengthy order and instead of deciding the quantum of maintenance in clear terms, it has considered all the contentions of the parties and thereafter recorded its finding about the OP No. 2 being a legally wedded wife and there being reasonable ground for seeking maintenance from petitioner. Thus, in this manner the learned trial Court has exceeded the mandate of this Court in Cr. Revision No. 1589 of 2019. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be quashed and remitted back for fresh consideration.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of OP Nos. 2 & 3 vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same does not need any interference. Learned senior counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has passed the order in compliance of the directions of this Court in Cr. Revision No. 1589 of 2019 as in the said order the learned co-ordinate Bench has directed that the learned trail Court would consider the evidence of the parties on the point of income and accordingly, the learned Family Court considered the evidence and arrived at the finding in the impugned order which cannot be faulted.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
At the outset, I must record my impression that the present revision petition is a completely frivolous petition. The ground taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for assailing the order dated 07.02.2025 is without any substance. When the learned coordinate Bench set aside the earlier order dated 04.05.2019 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the point of quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court was duty-bound to consider the mandate and pass an order which the learned Family Court duly passed. Now, deciding the quantum of maintenance could not be in vacuum. For arriving at a finding about the appropriate amount of maintenance, naturally the material available before the Family Court was required to be considered and the same was duly considered by the learned Family Court. The petitioner cannot dictate how the Court should proceed and come to its finding for deciding the quantum of maintenance. The learned Family Court has passed a reasoned order having considered the evidence before it and the impugned order does not suffer from any impropriety, infirmity or illegality.
Hence, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.