High Court affirms that enhancement of maintenance fixed by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC must be sought through Section 127 proceedings and not by way of revision; upholds trial court’s discretion and procedure — limits revisional jurisdiction over factual determinations in maintenance matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR. REV./856/2022 of NUTAN KUMARI Vs The State of Bihar |
| CNR | BRHC010999572022 |
| Date of Registration | 08-12-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Bihar; clarifies procedural route for enhancement of maintenance |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court’s order |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Family Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can enhance maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in revision when an alternate remedy under Section 127 CrPC exists. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the Family Court’s assessment of maintenance under Section 125, as the court had considered evidence on record, including the respondent’s salary slip. The petitioner’s grievance was about the quantum of maintenance, but the High Court held that for enhancement, Section 127 CrPC provides an efficacious and alternate remedy. The revisional jurisdiction would not be exercised to reappreciate or re-determine facts already adjudicated by the Family Court. The petition was considered misconceived and thus dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek alteration of maintenance by appropriate proceedings under Section 127 CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s maintenance order, seeking higher amounts despite the trial court having assessed the respondent’s actual income. The Family Court fixed Rs.8,000/- p.m. for the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- p.m. for her ailing minor son, totaling Rs.18,000/- p.m., after considering salary slips showing a monthly income of Rs.71,191/-. The petitioner’s counsel did not demonstrate any error in the trial court’s factual assessment. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The existence and sufficiency of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 127 CrPC for alteration of maintenance was emphasized. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All family courts and subordinate courts in Bihar |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, in matters concerning maintenance enhancement procedure |
| Follows | Family court’s factual findings and established statutory procedure |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirmation that petitioners seeking enhancement of maintenance, after a Section 125 CrPC order, must use Section 127 CrPC as statutory remedy—revision is not the correct procedure.
- Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC does not extend to re-examination of factual assessments on maintenance quantum where trial courts have duly considered evidence.
- The High Court will not entertain challenges to quantum of maintenance in revision unless illegality or impropriety is evident on the face of the order.
- Liberty is preserved for petitioners to approach the appropriate forum by following due statutory provisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by noting the actual grievance — insufficiency of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
- It examined whether the Family Court erred in its factual determination regarding the respondent’s income and the quantum awarded.
- The court found that the Family Court had duly considered the salary slip (showing Rs.71,191/- per month) while fixing maintenance for the petitioner and her ailing minor son.
- The petitioner’s counsel could not identify any instance where the Family Court ignored or misapplied evidence.
- The High Court highlighted that Section 127 CrPC is the appropriate statutory mechanism for seeking enhancement or alteration of maintenance, thereby providing an alternate, efficacious remedy.
- Emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction does not cover cases seeking re-determination of facts or quantum unless a clear illegality is apparent.
- The court dismissed the revision as misconceived and directed the petitioner to seek relief under Section 127, if so advised.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The maintenance awarded by the Family Court was insufficient for the petitioner and her ailing son.
- Sought enhancement of the maintenance amount.
Respondent (O.P. No.2 / Husband)
- Produced salary slip to establish actual income.
- No illegality or impropriety in the Family Court’s factual assessment was pointed out.
State
No separate distinct argument recorded beyond appearances.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Nutan Kumari, challenged an order of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, which directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to her and Rs.10,000/- per month to her minor son under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court’s order was based on the respondent’s income as evidenced by a salary slip showing Rs.71,191/- per month. The petitioner sought enhancement of this amount through a revision petition before the Patna High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses Section 125 CrPC (grant of maintenance) and Section 127 CrPC (alteration of maintenance).
- Interprets Section 127 CrPC as an alternate and efficient statutory remedy for seeking an increase or alteration of maintenance previously fixed under Section 125 CrPC.
- Reinforces that revisional jurisdiction will not be used to override statutory mechanisms for enhancement.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court affirms existing law/practice regarding the remedy for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC and the limited scope of revision under the CrPC.
Citations
- No SCC / AIR / MANU / neutral citations or reportability status specified.
- NAFR (Non-Reportable)