Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance Citing Desertion Unless Allegation Is Judicially Established: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a wife's claim of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the allegations are conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.The petition arose out of an order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of ₹22,000/- per month to his wife. The husband challenged the order,...
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a wife's claim of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the allegations are conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.
The petition arose out of an order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of ₹22,000/- per month to his wife. The husband challenged the order, arguing that his wife had refused reconciliation and deserted him, and that his income was wrongly assessed.
He pointed to a pending case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020), seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, while dismissing the husband's plea, held that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a claim under Section 125 CrPC unless conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.
“But unless the petitioner is able to get a declaration in his favour in the Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the opposite party no. 2 fails to justify her desertion, any challenge to the maintenance order is not sustainable.” the court said.
The court found that the maintenance amount awarded to the wife is about 25 percent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021).
Justice Jha also emphasised that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of facts unless illegality or impropriety is shown.
The revision petition was dismissed, though the Court clarified that the husband may seek modification if a competent court later finds the wife's desertion unjustifiable
Case Title: Vivek Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No.754 of 2025
Counsel for the petitioner: Adv.Arbind Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2: Adv. Krishna Chandra