{"id":2390,"date":"2025-12-08T14:16:32","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T08:46:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=2390"},"modified":"2025-12-08T13:37:45","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T08:07:45","slug":"husband-maintenance-wife-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/husband-maintenance-wife-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Patna High Court: Husband Cannot Deny Maintenance To Wife, Citing Desertion Unless Allegation Is Judicially Established"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

BIHAR<\/em>: The Patna High Court<\/strong> has once again made it clear that a wife\u2019s legal right<\/strong> to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong> cannot be denied only because the husband claims she deserted him. The Court said that unless this claim is proved and declared<\/strong> in a separate matrimonial case, the maintenance order will continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case came from an order of the Family Court<\/a>, Bhagalpur, which had directed the husband to pay \u20b922,000 per month<\/strong> to his wife in Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2019<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The husband pointed out that he had already filed Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020<\/strong> under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong> for restitution of conjugal rights. He argued that this showed that he wanted to continue the marriage, but the wife refused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court, however, did not accept this argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice<\/strong> Arun Kumar Jha<\/strong>, while dismissing the husband\u2019s revision, stated clearly that an allegation of desertion has no value<\/strong> in a maintenance case unless the husband proves it in the matrimonial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBut 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Family Court had worked out the husband\u2019s net salary as \u20b990,562 per month<\/strong>, and the High Court found that the maintenance amount of \u20b922,000 was roughly 25% of his net income<\/strong>, which is consistent with the Supreme Court\u2019s guidelines<\/strong> in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s findings unless something is clearly wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After examining all the records and arguments, the Court concluded that the husband failed to show any legal error in the Family Court\u2019s order<\/strong>. Therefore, the High Court upheld the maintenance order and dismissed the revision petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Court gave the husband a limited liberty<\/strong> \u2014 if in future any competent court finds that the wife actually deserted him without justification, he may approach the court again<\/strong> for modification of the maintenance order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Husband
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Used In This Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>What It Means (Simple Indian English)<\/strong><\/td>How It Applies in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Allows a wife, child, or parents to claim monthly maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves.<\/strong><\/td>Wife filed for maintenance and Family Court granted \u20b922,000 per month. Husband challenged this under revision.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Restitution of Conjugal Rights \u2014 spouse can file when the other spouse leaves without reason and refuses to live together.<\/strong><\/td>Husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 25\/2020 claiming wife deserted him. Court said unless he proves<\/em> desertion here, he cannot deny maintenance.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Revisional Jurisdiction (CrPC)<\/strong><\/td>High Court reviews legal correctness of a lower court order but cannot re-evaluate evidence like a trial court.<\/strong><\/td>Husband sought revision of maintenance order, but HC said no illegality was shown; re-appreciating facts is not allowed.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance \u2014 generally 25% of net salary can be a fair amount.<\/strong><\/td>HC noted the \u20b922,000 maintenance is approx. 25% of husband’s net income (\u20b990,562), so it fits SC norms.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Concept of Desertion (Family Law)<\/strong><\/td>Leaving matrimonial home without valid reason. Must be established through a court finding.<\/strong><\/td>HC said allegations alone are meaningless \u2014 only a declared finding in Matrimonial Court can impact maintenance.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n