Bashist Narayan Singh @ Karu Singh v. Annpurna Devi

counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2009 passed in Maintenance Case No. No. 74 (M)/2007 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif, has preferred the present revision application under section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order, awarding maintenance in favour of the opposite party and three minor daughters, born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Patna High Court CR. REV. No.21 of 2010 (6) dt.27-06-2012 there is absolutely no dispute regarding relationship between the petitioner and opposite party, being the husband and the wife respectively. He fairly submits that from their wedlock, three daughters were born, who all are still minors, and they are living with their mother (opposite party). However, it has been strenuously argued that the petitioner is not capable of paying maintenance amount awarded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif. According to him, the sources of income and amount of annual income shown in the impugned order are not correct. He further submits that the allegation that petitioner has solemnised his marriage with another lady, namely, Rinku Kumari, daughter of one Binod Thakur, is also factually incorrect. He next submits that the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the prayer made in this application and has supported the impugned judgment and order. It may be mentioned here that the matter was heard earlier and the petitioner was granted opportunity to enter into an agreement/reconciliation with his wife, but despite opportunity given to the petitioner, he has failed to pursue the matter. It Patna High Court CR. REV. No.21 of 2010 (6) dt.27-06-2012 appears to this Court that the conduct of the petitioner is not very fair and he is not very honest to the statement made before this Court. After having heard the parties at length, this Court finds that there is no dispute regarding relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party, being husband and wife. There is also no dispute that three minor daughters were born, out of their wedlock. Despite sufficient means, the petitioner has refused to maintain not only to his wife, but the aforesaid three minor daughters also. Before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif, the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce materials in support of his case. Accordingly, four witnesses are produced by the petitioner and five witnesses were produced by the opposite party in support of their respective case. On the basis of the materials produced by the parties, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif has recorded findings of fact that, despite having sufficient means, the petitioner has been neglecting his wife and his three minor daughters. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif, on the basis of the materials produced by the parties, has also recorded findings of fact that the petitioner has landed Patna High Court CR. REV. No.21 of 2010 (6) dt.27-06-2012 property having annual income of 1, 50,000/- besides other annual income from his other business. It has further been recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner has solemnised marriage with another lady, namely, Rinku Kumari, therefore, opposite party has validly refused live with the petitioner as his wife. Consequently, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif has awarded a monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- for the wife and monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each for all the three minor daughters. The petitioner has altogether been directed to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month to his wife (opposite party) and his three minor daughters. On close scrutiny of the impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 passed in Maintenance Case no. 74 (M) of 2007 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif and on examination of other materials available on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment and order under challenge. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Now learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif shall be at liberty to get the order executed in accordance with law, so that the allowance of maintenance, as Patna High Court CR. REV. No.21 of 2010 (6) dt.27-06-2012 directed by the impugned judgment and order, is paid to opposite party and her three minor daughters at an earliest. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)