Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.111 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Smt.Renu Devi Wife Of Dr. Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthy Resident Of C/O Alok Kumar Chaudhary In Jhabarmal Gali, Infront Of Sarawagi School, Police Station Dehri-On-Sone, District Rohtas 2. Vijay Kumar S/O Dr. Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthi R/O C/O Alok Kumar Chaudhary In Jhabarmal Gal, Infront Of Sarawagi School, P.S.- Dehri-On-Sone, Distt.- Rohtas 3. Anshu Rani D/O Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthi R/O C/O Alok Kumar Chaudhary In Jhabarmal Gal, Infront Of Sarawagi School, P.S.- Dehri- On-Sone, Distt.- Rohtas 4. Shyamali Kumari D/O Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthi R/O C/O Alok Kumar Chaudhary In Jhabarmal Gal, Infront Of Sarawagi School, P.S.- Dehri-On-Sone, Distt.- Rohtas .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Health And Family Planning Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Health And Family Planning Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Accountant General, (A & E), Bihar, Patna, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 4. The Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna 5. The Chief Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Town Block, Gaya, Police Station Gaya, District Gaya 6. The Civil Surgeon, Gaya 7. The Treasury Officer, Gaya 8. Dr. Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthy, Retired Medical Officer, Department Of Medical Education, Health And Family Planning, Government Of Bihar, Patna Son Of Jhauri Prasad Steel Gate Behind Kunti Niwas, Police Station Sarai Dhela, Post Office Sarai Delha, District Dhanbad, Resident Of Village Rasulpur, Post Office Sanda, Police Station Dhanarua, District Patna
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manikant Mishra Gp25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 11 17-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and respondent no.8. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.111 of 2012 (11) dt.17-07-2013 2 / 6 The petitioner no.1 is the wife of respondent no.8. Petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are son and daughters of petitioner no.1. The husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 retired as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Town Block, Gaya on 31.07.2010. She alleged that her husband abandoned her and her children, namely petitioner nos. 2 to 4. She filed maintenance case in the year 1990 bearing case No. 4 M of 1990 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasram disposed of Maintenance case on 30.04.1992 and a lump sum was awarded to petitioner no.1. She filed a Revision before Sessions Judge being Cr. Revision No. 172 of 1992. The order of Magistrate was modified vide order dated 09.06.1993 of 7th A.D.J., Rohtas and a sum of Rs.400/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner no.1 and a sum of Rs. 300/- each to the two daughters namely Shyamali Kumari and Anshu Rani vide order dated 16.05.2007. The maintenance amount was enhanced under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. in Misc. case no.7 of 2004 as Rs.2000/- per month in respect of her (petitioner no.1) and 1500/- each per month in respect of her two daughters. Thus, the total maintenance amount payable came to Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 16.05.2007. The petitioners submit that no amount towards 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.111 of 2012 (11) dt.17-07-2013 3 / 6 maintenance is at all being paid since 2009. Furthermore, full maintenance were not paid for the earlier period even, which too were regular. The petitioners submits that in the contempt application bearing M.J.C. No.3516 of 2012, the respondent no.8 took a false plea that he needs money for treatment of his wife (petitioner no.1) and for payment of school fees of the children, rather the respondent no.8 did not pay any amount either for her treatment or for school fees. On the other hand, respondent no.8 submits that maintenance amount has been paid to the petitioners quite regularly. He further submits that on account of order of stay on grant of pensionary benefits he is not able to pay the maintenance amount of late. The dispute is whether respondent no.8 is paying the maintenance amount as directed by the Principal Judge, Family Court and what is the total liability on the day. It is relevant to state that the instant case was filed on 02.10.2012. Time and again notice was issued for appearance of respondent no.8 which he evaded successfully. This Court, as such was constrained to restrain the Accountant General from paying any further amount to respondent no.8. The relevant extract of 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.111 of 2012 (11) dt.17-07-2013 4 / 6 order dated 05.02.2013 is quoted herein below: “Upon this writ petition being filed, thrice notices, by different modes, have been sent to respondent No 8 without success. In such a situation, I direct the Accountant General, Bihar to stop payment of all pensionary benefits of any nature to respondent No 8 Dr Chandrika Prasad Vidyarthy till further orders of this Court. Let State and Accountant General take instructions and file comprehensive counter affidavits as to the legal status in this regard.” The aforesaid order was reiterated on 04.04.2013. The respondent no.8 now has appeared and submits that he is willing to pay the arrears of maintenance to petitioner no.1 and her two daughters through cheque in her account as soon as the pension is vacated. We get some idea about maintenance due from order dated 07.07.2008 of Principal Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Misc. Case no. 37 of 2007. It would appear from the order that respondent no.8 had not paid the maintenance amount for the last 14 months, which would come to Rs. 70,000/-. The respondent no.8 submits that he has paid Rs.40,000/- of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner, who disputes 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.111 of 2012 (11) dt.17-07-2013 5 / 6 the statement of respondent no.8. However, there is nothing on the record from which one can infer whether the maintenance due even up to 07.07.2008 and subsequent thereto has been paid to the petitioners or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that both the petitioner no.1 as well as respondent no.8 would appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sasaram and file a detailed statement regarding the money paid and money received and the amount liable to be paid. The Principal Judge, Family Court would determine the amount due on the date within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount determined by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sasaram will have to be paid by the respondent no.8 forthwith by cheque / Bank draft in the account of mother; both for herself as well as for her two daughters till separate account of the daughters are opened. The stay only on payment of gratuity and leave encashment is concerned is lifted. The State and the Accountant General office would release the gratuity and leave encashment amount due to respondent no. 8. The respondent no.8 would forthwith pay the arrears of maintenance to petitioner no. 1 and her two daughters, by cheque / Bank draft. Once he pay the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.111 of 2012 (11) dt.17-07-2013 6 / 6 legal dues to them , as directed by the Principal Judge and then upon due order or certification of the Court the State and Accountant General would release the pension too. The respondent no.8 would continue to pay the current maintenance through cheque / Bank draft in terms of the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sasaram.
Decision
This application stands disposed of. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Uday/-