In a packed courtroom on Monday, the Patna High Court refused to interfere with a Family Court order directing a Bhagalpur man to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife. The atmosphere felt tense at times, especially when the bench pointedly questioned the husband’s arguments about “desertion” and whether he had any conclusive legal backing for it.
Background
The case arose from a 2019 maintenance petition filed by Pallawi Kumari, who sought financial support from her husband, Vivek Kumar Singh. Earlier this year, the Family Court had fixed the maintenance at ₹22,000 per month, relying mainly on Singh’s net monthly salary, which the court had assessed at over ₹90,000.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies When Appeal Time Starts in Environmental Clearance Cases, Dismisses Talli Gram
Singh challenged this in revision, arguing that the order was unfair and ignored key facts. His counsel insisted that Pallawi had left the matrimonial home without justification, that attempts at reconciliation had failed because of her “indifferent attitude,” and that he had even filed a separate case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Court’s Observations
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, who heard the matter orally, examined the record and quickly narrowed down the core issue: Could the husband deny maintenance merely by claiming desertion, without any formal finding by a competent court?
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: Assignment of Specific Performance Decrees Need No Registration, Ending
The bench seemed unconvinced. During arguments, Justice Jha remarked, “Unless there is a clear declaration in the pending matrimonial case that the wife’s separation is unjustified, this Court cannot treat her as disentitled.”
The judge also noted that the Family Court had relied on the admitted salary figure provided by Singh himself, which placed the ₹22,000 award at roughly 25% of his take-home pay. That ratio, the court reminded, aligns with the Supreme Court’s guideline in Rajnesh vs. Neha.
On the husband’s claims about reconciliation proceedings, the court said these observations from earlier hearings “cannot by themselves defeat a woman’s lawful right to maintenance.” The bench added that unless any specific finding was recorded against the wife, such remarks were more procedural in nature and not determinative.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses State’s Appeal After Acquittal in POCSO Case, Says DNA Alone Cannot Establish Rape Without Clear Victim Testimony
Decision
After hearing all sides, Justice Jha upheld the Family Court’s order, calling it legally sound and free of any “illegality or impropriety.” The bench said, “This Court, in revisional jurisdiction, will not re-appreciate evidence merely to arrive at a different view.”
The revision petition was dismissed. However, the door was left slightly open: If a competent court later concludes that the wife’s separation was unjustified, the husband may seek modification of the maintenance order.
With this, the matter ended at the court’s decision itself.
Case Title: Vivek Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Pallawi Kumari
Court: Patna High Court
Case Type: Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2025
Parties:
- Petitioner: Vivek Kumar Singh
- Respondents: State of Bihar & Pallawi Kumari
Original Case: Maintenance Case No. 01/2019 (Family Court, Bhagalpur)
