Unless Desertion Is Proved in Matrimonial Suit, Maintenance Cannot Be Denied Under 125 CrPC: Patna High Court

In a decision reinforcing the statutory entitlement of wives to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Patna High Court has held that allegations of desertion alone do not disentitle a woman from receiving maintenance unless they are judicially established in matrimonial proceedings.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha upheld the Family Court’s order awarding ₹22,000/month as maintenance, noting that the amount constituted roughly 25% of the petitioner’s net salary of ₹90,562, and was consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

“Desertion Must Be Judicially Determined Under Section 9 HMA – Mere Allegation in Maintenance Proceedings Not Enough”: High Court Rejects Husband’s Core Argument

The petitioner-husband, represented by Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, had challenged the Family Court's maintenance order dated 4 June 2025, contending that the wife had deserted him and shown no inclination to resume the marital relationship, referencing failed reconciliation attempts and statements recorded during bail proceedings.

However, the Court dismissed this argument, holding: “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.”

Justice Arun Kumar Jha clarified that pending matrimonial proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot, by themselves, operate to bar maintenance claims unless a positive adjudication of desertion is rendered in favour of the husband.

“Maintenance Award Based on Net Salary of ₹90,562 is Fair and In Line with Rajnesh v. Neha”: High Court Declines to Interfere in Quantum

The petitioner had also argued that the trial court failed to consider his true income and relied on inflated figures. According to his counsel, the wife had claimed a salary of ₹46,350 in her petition and added a claim of agricultural income from three bighas of land.

However, the Court found this line of argument legally unsustainable, as the trial court relied on the petitioner’s net salary as ₹90,562, which was admitted in the record. The Court observed:

“The maintenance amount awarded to the opposite party no. 2 is about 25 percent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha.”

Thus, the quantum of maintenance was upheld as both reasonable and judicially consistent with binding precedent.

“No Reappreciation of Facts in Revisional Jurisdiction Absent Patent Error”: High Court Emphasizes Scope of Criminal Revision

Another significant point clarified by the Court was the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that unless there is a glaring illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court, the revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb factual conclusions.

Justice Jha stated: “This Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not like to reappreciate the facts so as to arrive at a different view from the learned trial court which is not permissible for revisional Court.”

This reinforces the principle that revisional courts are not appellate bodies and cannot reassess income or factual nuances once they are properly considered by the trial court.

“Unwillingness to Reconcile Does Not Defeat Maintenance Claim”: Court Rejects Argument Based on Bail and Settlement Observations

The petitioner further relied on observations made during bail and reconciliation proceedings, arguing that the wife had shown indifference and was unwilling to resume cohabitation. These included references to orders passed by SDJM, Naugachia, and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria.

The Court found this reasoning inadequate and unsupported by law. It noted that no adverse finding had been recorded by any court against the wife, and that:

“No inference could be drawn from the orders unless any specific finding is recorded against the opposite party no. 2.”

Therefore, the unilateral reference to failed conciliation or the wife’s conduct in parallel proceedings could not justify denial of her legal entitlement under Section 125 CrPC.

Petition Dismissed, But Right to Seek Modification Preserved

While dismissing the revision petition, the Court left open the possibility for the petitioner to seek modification in future, if he secures a favourable adjudication in the pending matrimonial case.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha concluded:

“The revisionist/petitioner has failed to show an illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and hence, the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 does not need any interference of this Court.”

The Court added that: “However, the petitioner may move for modification of the maintenance order, in case, desertion of the petitioner is not found justifiable by any Court of law.”

This balanced conclusion provides scope for review without disrupting the existing order, affirming the rights of the wife in the interim.

Core Legal Takeaways

For practitioners in family law and criminal revision jurisdiction, this judgment reaffirms multiple key legal positions:

• Desertion must be adjudicated under Section 9 HMA; allegations in 125 CrPC proceedings are insufficient.

• Rajnesh v. Neha remains the touchstone for assessing quantum of maintenance; ~25% of net salary is a well-accepted norm.

• Revisional courts cannot substitute factual appreciation of trial courts unless illegality is evident.

• Failed reconciliation attempts or lack of settlement willingness do not negate entitlement to maintenance.

Advising clients to contest maintenance only after securing a judicial finding of desertion under HMA is now a stronger strategic position, given the clarity of this ruling.

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025