In the Ara Family Court, Jyoti Singh sought ₹10 crore maintenance from Bhojpuri actor Pawan Singh, stating she wants to continue the marriage or receive financial settlement. The court has prioritised reconciliation while the high-value maintenance claim brings financial accountability into sharp focus.
Pawan Singh Divorce Case: The Family Court at Ara, Bihar, is currently hearing the matrimonial dispute between Bhojpuri actor Pawan Singh and his wife, Jyoti Singh. The court has initiated reconciliation proceedings and directed both parties to appear personally to explore whether the marriage can be saved before taking any decision on divorce or maintenance.
This step shows that the court is prioritising settlement and due process over immediate financial or adversarial orders.
At the recent hearing, Jyoti Singh appeared before the court, while Pawan Singh did not attend due to health reasons. His lawyer informed the court that he was unwell and suffering from high blood pressure and had been admitted to a hospital. Though the hospital name was not disclosed, an associate showed him lying on a hospital bed through a video call. It was also conveyed that detailed reconciliation discussions could not be properly addressed in open court.
During the hearing, Jyoti Singh stated:
“Judge sir, it has been seven years since my marriage. Till today, I have received neither my husband’s love nor money for my maintenance. I want to live with my husband. If he does not want to live together, then I should be given ₹10 crore as maintenance.”
She waited at Ara Civil Court for some time before leaving visibly emotional. She appeared wearing sindoor, indicating that she still considers herself married. Her lawyer, Vishnudhar Pandey, told the court that she wishes to reconcile. She also said, “I want to live only with my husband”. She informed the judge that she receives only adjournments at every hearing and claimed that her husband does not take a clear stand.
The matter was scheduled at Vikramganj Court, and her side expressed dissatisfaction over his absence. She described her marriage as “Seven years of marriage, only pain” and said she did not receive emotional or financial support. Folding her hands, she told the judge, “My Lord, I only want justice.”
The judge clarified that the court would first examine the possibility of reconciliation and would consider maintenance and related financial issues only thereafter. The next hearing is scheduled for February 24, when the court intends to interact directly with both parties. If reconciliation does not succeed, the divorce proceedings may proceed, with a possible decision within four to five months.
Jyoti Singh also stated, “I can’t work or move freely,” claiming that public recognition as Pawan Singh’s wife makes it difficult to find employment in Jharkhand, Bihar, and nearby regions.
The marriage took place on March 7, 2018, in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. In her written application, Jyoti Singh has made allegations that, within a month of marriage, Pawan Singh consumed alcohol, verbally and physically abused her, and forced her to undergo an abortion twice. She has been living at her parental home for two months after the marriage and has sought interim maintenance.
The legal process must remain grounded in evidence and proportionality. Serious allegations require strict proof before any conclusions are drawn. Equally, a demand of ₹10 crore as maintenance cannot be treated lightly and must be examined under established legal standards relating to income, capacity, and actual need.
The Family Court’s decision to prioritise reconciliation indicates that the matter is still at a preliminary stage, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made against Pawan Singh. Due process and factual scrutiny will ultimately determine the outcome, not emotional statements or public narratives.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law & Sections | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 | Provides legal grounds for divorce, such as cruelty, desertion, etc. | The divorce proceedings between Jyoti Singh and Pawan Singh are being heard under this provision before the Family Court. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 | Grants interim maintenance and litigation expenses to a spouse who has no sufficient independent income during pendency of the case. | Jyoti Singh has sought interim maintenance, alleging that she has not received financial support for the past 4–5 years. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 25 | Allows the court to grant permanent alimony at the time of passing a final divorce decree, based on the income and circumstances of both parties. | The ₹10 crore maintenance demand would fall for consideration under this provision if divorce is granted. |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 9 | Mandates the Family Court to make efforts for reconciliation before proceeding with adjudication. | The Family Court at Arrah has initiated reconciliation proceedings before deciding on divorce or maintenance. |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of Proof Principle | Requires that allegations of cruelty or abuse be proved by evidence. | Allegations of verbal abuse, physical cruelty, and forced abortion would need strict proof before the court can rely on them. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Jyoti Singh vs Pawan Singh
- Case Type.: Matrimonial Case (Divorce & Maintenance)
- Court: Family Court, Arrah Civil Court, Bihar
- Nature of Proceedings: Divorce Petition with Interim Maintenance Claim
- Stage of Case: Reconciliation Proceedings Initiated
- Next Date of Hearing: February 24
- Counsels:
- For Wife: Vishnudhar Pandey
- For Husband: Not Disclosed
Key Takeaways
- Reconciliation must be genuine, not a procedural formality; courts should ensure both parties appear and participate responsibly.
- A ₹10 crore maintenance demand must be assessed strictly under law, based on income, need, and proportionality, not emotion.
- Allegations of cruelty and forced abortion require clear evidence; no findings have been recorded yet.
- Interim maintenance cannot be presumed and must be supported by proof of financial dependency.
- Until reconciliation fails and evidence is tested, no legal conclusion should be drawn against either party.
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.