The Patna High Court has upheld a Family Court order granting maintenance to a woman and her minor daughter, rejecting the husband’s allegations of adultery and illegitimacy. Justice Jitendra Kumar, while dismissing the criminal revision petition filed by Avadh Kishore Sah, held that bald allegations of immoral conduct are insufficient to disqualify a wife from maintenance and emphasized the legal presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage.
Background
The case arose from a maintenance petition filed under Section 125 CrPC by Soni Devi and her daughter Gudiya Kumari against her husband Avadh Kishore Sah. The Family Court, Bhagalpur, on 14.01.2020, directed the husband to pay ₹3,000 per month to Soni Devi and ₹2,000 per month to their daughter from the date of the petition, i.e., July 26, 2012.
Soni Devi alleged that after their marriage on March 18, 2010, she was subjected to cruelty due to dowry demands and her husband’s illicit relationship with another woman. She claimed she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house without any financial support. She further stated that she had no source of income.
The husband contested the petition by claiming the marriage was forced, denying paternity of the child, and alleging that the wife had an adulterous relationship with her brother-in-law. He also submitted a decree of divorce dated March 1, 2025, passed by the Family Court, Munger, dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Court’s Analysis and Key Findings
Justice Jitendra Kumar rejected the husband’s claim that the wife was “living in adultery,” observing that:
“Living in adultery denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality. One or two lapses from virtues may be acts of adultery, but would not be sufficient to show that the woman was ‘living in adultery’. A few moral lapse and a return back to a normal life can not be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be ‘living in adultery’.”
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide specific details—such as dates, places, or concrete evidence—of alleged adulterous conduct. Crucially, it highlighted the inconsistency in the husband’s stance:
“Even conduct of petitioner/husband during the subsistence of the marriage does not show that he was serious about his such allegation… Moreover, as per his pleadings, he was always ready to keep his wife with him. Such willingness on the part of a husband is not possible if he believes that his wife has been indulged in adulterous life.”
Hence, the Court held that the allegation of adultery was unsubstantiated and could not disqualify the wife from receiving maintenance.
On Paternity and Maintenance of the Child
The petitioner argued that the daughter Gudiya Kumari was not his biological child since she was born on August 8, 2010—just over four months after the marriage. However, the Court invoked Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and reiterated that:
“There is mandatory legal presumption that O.P. No.3/Gudiya Kumari is legitimate daughter of the petitioner… The presumption regarding the paternity… could have been rebutted only by pleading and proving… non-access… but I find that there is no such pleadings and evidence on behalf of the petitioner…”
The Court emphasized that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, which are summary in nature and intended to prevent destitution, a strict standard of proof is not required:
“Strict standard of proof is not required in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC unlike in matrimonial proceedings… Prima facie, satisfaction of the Court regarding marital status of the parties and the paternity of the child is sufficient…”
Quantum of Maintenance and Final Decision
Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the Court noted the husband’s employment in a government office, corroborated by a salary slip and witness testimony estimating his monthly income between ₹18,000 to ₹25,000. The Court concluded that the maintenance amounts awarded—₹3,000 for the wife and ₹2,000 for the daughter—were reasonable and not excessive.
The petition was dismissed, and the High Court affirmed the Family Court’s order.
Case Title: Avadh Kishore Sah @ Awadhesh Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 262 of 2020
