Safiya Malik 

The Patna High Court has modified a lower court’s maintenance order in a revision petition, reducing the monthly maintenance amount awarded to the wife while introducing an annual increment clause. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jitendra Kumar, addresses a dispute concerning the financial obligations of a husband towards his estranged wife following an ex-parte divorce.

The revision petition was filed by the husband against the order dated 26.04.2019, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura, in Maintenance Case No. 29M of 2017. The Family Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 to his wife from the date of filing the petition.

The couple was married on 07.05.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs. The wife alleged that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty due to demands for additional dowry, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. She contended that her husband, employed as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000 and that she had no independent means of income. She stated that due to financial difficulties, she had been unable to sustain herself, necessitating her petition for maintenance.

The husband, in his response, disputed these allegations and asserted that his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home just seven days after the marriage without sufficient cause. He further submitted that he had filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed ex-parte in his favour. Following this, he obtained an ex-parte divorce decree against his wife. The husband argued that since the divorce had been finalized and his wife had not challenged the decree, she was not entitled to claim maintenance.

Additionally, the husband informed the court that he had since remarried and had a daughter from his second marriage, with another child expected shortly. He contended that his financial obligations had increased due to his new family responsibilities, making it difficult to comply with the Family Court’s order to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his former wife.

The court examined whether the wife was entitled to maintenance despite the ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the subsequent divorce. Referring to Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72, the court observed: "The mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband's behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree."

The court further observed that the wife’s claim of being subjected to cruelty due to dowry demands was not effectively countered by the husband, apart from his assertion that she had left voluntarily. The court noted that there was no evidence indicating that the wife had the financial means to support herself. The mere fact that the husband had remarried and had additional financial responsibilities did not absolve him of his duty to provide maintenance to his former wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The court also took into account the principle that the purpose of maintenance laws is to prevent destitution and ensure that a wife, unable to sustain herself, is not left without financial support. It held that while the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 appeared excessive considering the husband's stated salary, the obligation to provide support still existed.

The High Court modified the Family Court’s order, reducing the maintenance amount to Rs. 9,500 per month from the date of filing the maintenance petition. Additionally, the court introduced an annual increment of 5% in the maintenance amount, applicable every February. This maintenance would continue until the wife remarries.

The court also directed that arrears accumulated under the original order must be cleared within two months via bank draft, with due consideration of any payments already made. The court warned that failure to comply with this directive would result in contempt proceedings against the petitioner-husband.

Additionally, the court stated that its order did not bar the wife from seeking an enhancement of maintenance in the future if circumstances warranted such a claim. The husband was also given liberty to approach the court for modification of maintenance in case of significant financial changes.

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar vs. Nutan Devi
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2019
Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar

[Read/Download order]