Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Kumar Roy v. Alka Rai @ Alka Roy

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2009 (3) dt.16-10-2012 majority. The amount of maintenance has been directed to be paid to the claimants from the date of the order i.e. 23rd January 2009. It appears that in the aforesaid proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and marriage between them was solemnised on 24.6.1991. It was pleaded that because of the marital relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, she gave birth to a male child on 12.12.2001. It was also pleaded on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner has sufficient means, and he has a medicine shop and he is also running a nursing home at Varanasi, yet he was neglecting and refusing to maintain the opposite party no. 2 and the minor son. The petitioner was impleaded as opposite party no. 2 in the aforesaid proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. He appeared in that proceeding and filed his show cause. He did not deny the factum of marriage with the opposite party no. 2. However, he resisted the claim of maintenance made on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that though he was prepared to keep her as his wife, but without any sufficient cause she refused to live with him as his wife. In support of her claim for maintenance, the opposite Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2009 (3) dt.16-10-2012 party no. 2 produced two witnesses including herself. In support of his case, the petitioner did not produce any other witness excepting himself. After considering the entire evidence/materials, the claim of maintenance made on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 for herself and her minor son has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 23rd January 2009. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 is leading an adulterous life has been disbelieved. The plea of the petitioner that he was willing to keep and maintain the opposite party no. 2 with him as his wife, has not been believed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga. While deciding the quantum of maintenance, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga has noticed that the petitioner has himself admitted in his deposition that he was running a clinic at Varanasi, where there is a medicine shop also. The petitioner has further admitted in his evidence that he is having certain agricultural lands from which also he is having separate earnings. As per the evidence of the opposite party no. 2 the petitioner is running a nursing home at Varanasi. The income of the petitioner has been assessed to be around Rs. 50,000/- per month. After noticing the aforesaid financial position of the petitioner, he has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2009 (3) dt.16-10-2012 Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) per month to his wife (Opposite party no. 2) and Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand) to his minor son, till he attains majority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has very fairly conceded that despite the indulgence granted by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 27.1.2011, he has not been able to be in touch with the petitioner and could not take further instruction from him. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, he is not in a position to state whether the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga is being paid to the opposite party no. 2 or not. After having heard the parties, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity or impropriety warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the monthly income of the petitioner, as assessed to be around Rs. 50,000/- per month, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga by the impugned order dated 23rd January, 2009 cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, no case for interference is made out. It is clarified that if the petitioner has not paid the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2009 (3) dt.16-10-2012 entire amount of maintenance as per the impugned judgment and order, or is not paying the maintenance of the current month to the opposite party no. 2 on month to month basis, then the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga shall be at liberty to take all possible coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of the arrears of maintenance as also the maintenance of the current month. In the result, the application stands finally dismissed with the observations and directions made above. Let this order be communicated to the learned Family court below forthwith. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)