Wife Cannot Be Denied Maintenance On Ground Of Desertion Unless Declaration Is Obtained In Plea For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that wife cannot be denied maintenance citing desertion unless the husband obtains a declaration in his favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition by husband seeking to set aside/ modify an order passed by the Family Court whereby the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.22,000/- per month to his wife.

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha held, ".....the only ground appears to assail the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 is that the opposite party no. 2 has herself deserted the petitioner and she is taking advantage of this fact. But 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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Arbind Kumar Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Surendra Prasad Singh.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that during the reconciliation proceedings, the Trial Court had recorded its finding that the Respondent-Wife did not want to restore the matrimonial relationship and due to her indifferent approach, the matter could not be reconciled.

He further submitted that the Petitioner-Husband has already filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. The Counsel thus averred that the Trial Court has not considered the fact that Respondent-wife herself deserted the Petitioner-Husband and not entitled for maintenance amount. 

Reasoning By Court 

The Court agreed with the submission of the Counsel for the Respondent-wife and held that the wife cannot be denied maintenance citing desertion, unless the husband gets a declaration in that regard.

It also held that the maintenance amount awarded to the wife is about 25 per cent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021).

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Vivek Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar  

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Arbind Kumar Singh

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Surendra Prasad Singh, Advocate Krishna Chandra

Click here to read/ download Order