The Patna High Court has held that a husband cannot avoid paying maintenance by merely alleging that his wife deserted him. Such allegations must first be proved in matrimonial court before they can affect maintenance rights.
BIHAR: The Patna High Court has once again made it clear that a wife’s legal right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied only because the husband claims she deserted him. The Court said that unless this claim is proved and declared in a separate matrimonial case, the maintenance order will continue.
This case came from an order of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, which had directed the husband to pay ₹22,000 per month to his wife in Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2019. The husband challenged this order through a criminal revision petition, saying that his wife had intentionally refused to stay with him, she did not cooperate in reconciliation, and that the court wrongly calculated his income.
The husband pointed out that he had already filed Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He argued that this showed that he wanted to continue the marriage, but the wife refused.
The Court, however, did not accept this argument.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, while dismissing the husband’s revision, stated clearly that an allegation of desertion has no value in a maintenance case unless the husband proves it in the matrimonial court.
The Court said:
“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 Family Court had worked out the husband’s net salary as ₹90,562 per month, and the High Court found that the maintenance amount of ₹22,000 was roughly 25% of his net income, which is consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021).
Justice Jha also reminded that the revisional court cannot re-analyse the evidence unless there is a clear illegality. The judgment notes that revisional jurisdiction does not allow the High Court to substitute its own view over the trial court’s findings unless something is clearly wrong.
After examining all the records and arguments, the Court concluded that the husband failed to show any legal error in the Family Court’s order. Therefore, the High Court upheld the maintenance order and dismissed the revision petition.
However, the Court gave the husband a limited liberty — if in future any competent court finds that the wife actually deserted him without justification, he may approach the court again for modification of the maintenance order.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Used In This Case
| Law / Section | What It Means (Simple Indian English) | How It Applies in This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Allows a wife, child, or parents to claim monthly maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves. | Wife filed for maintenance and Family Court granted ₹22,000 per month. Husband challenged this under revision. |
| Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Restitution of Conjugal Rights — spouse can file when the other spouse leaves without reason and refuses to live together. | Husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 25/2020 claiming wife deserted him. Court said unless he proves desertion here, he cannot deny maintenance. |
| Revisional Jurisdiction (CrPC) | High Court reviews legal correctness of a lower court order but cannot re-evaluate evidence like a trial court. | Husband sought revision of maintenance order, but HC said no illegality was shown; re-appreciating facts is not allowed. |
| Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance — generally 25% of net salary can be a fair amount. | HC noted the ₹22,000 maintenance is approx. 25% of husband’s net income (₹90,562), so it fits SC norms. |
| Concept of Desertion (Family Law) | Leaving matrimonial home without valid reason. Must be established through a court finding. | HC said allegations alone are meaningless — only a declared finding in Matrimonial Court can impact maintenance. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Vivek Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Pallawi Kumari @ Devi
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2025 (Arising out of Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2019)
- Bench (Judge): Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha (Oral Judgment dated 03-11-2025)
Counsels
| Party | Counsel Name |
| Petitioner (Husband) | Adv. Arbind Kumar Singh |
| State of Bihar | Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P. |
| Opposite Party No. 2 (Wife) | Adv. Krishna Chandra |
Outcome of the Case
- Criminal Revision dismissed.
- Maintenance of ₹22,000 per month affirmed.
- Husband may seek modification only if desertion is later proved by a competent court.
Key Takeaways
- Mere allegations of “desertion” are meaningless unless a court formally declares it; until then, the husband remains bound to pay maintenance.
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC continues even if the wife refuses reconciliation, unless the husband first proves her unjustified desertion in matrimonial proceedings.
- The High Court accepted 25 percent of the husband’s net salary as standard maintenance, again showing how heavily the system leans on men financially.
- Revisional courts will not recheck facts, meaning husbands get almost no second chance once a trial court fixes maintenance.
- The husband can seek relief only if he later wins a declaration of desertion—another reminder that men must fight long battles just to establish basic fairness.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.