Kamal Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.753 of 2013 (2) dt.16-01-2013 father and mother respectively of the petitioner as also of opposite party nos. 4 and 5. They have filed the aforesaid maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they have become very old persons aged about 75 and 70 years respectively, and are suffering several ailments. According claimants/parents though the petitioner is in government service, he is refusing to maintain them. Similarly, opposite party nos. 4 and 5, the other two sons of the claimants, are said to have sufficient means, yet they are refusing to maintain their parents. Since the aforesaid maintenance case remained pending for quite a long time, the father and mother of the petitioner filed a petition for interim maintenance in terms of section 125 (1) second proviso of the Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the aforesaid order dated

15.1.2011. By the aforesaid order, apart from the petitioner, opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have also been directed to pay interim maintenance to their parents @ Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 7000/- per month respectively. The petitioner, initially being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.1.2011, moved before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara for recall of the order of interim maintenance, but after considering the materials, the prayer for recall made by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Principal Judge by an order dated 7.7.2012. Thereafter, the 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.753 of 2013 (2) dt.16-01-2013 petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 987 of 2012 under section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order of interim maintenance. The said application was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court, whereafter the present application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While learned counsel was making submissions for restoration of the criminal revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner, he was asked to address the Court on merit, so that the matter may be considered for doing complete justice between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the factum that the petitioner is in the government service. However, he has tried to assail the order of interim maintenance on the ground that there are other brothers of the petitioner, who are also obliged to pay maintenance to the claimant-parents, but the claim has not been made against those brothers of the petitioner. In the given facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served by restoring the aforesaid criminal revision application to its original file and directing the old parents of the petitioner to appear before this Court for defending the order of interim maintenance. This Court is further of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub served, if the main maintenance case filed by the parents of 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.753 of 2013 (2) dt.16-01-2013 the petitioner itself is directed to be disposed of on merit within a prescribed period of time. Apparently, interim maintenance is granted under section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. for interregnum period. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are, admittedly, old persons aged more than 70 years. Therefore, their interest is required to be protected during the pendency of the maintenance case. For reasons recorded above, the present application is disposed of with a direction to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara to take up the Maintenance Case No. 14 of 2010 filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on priority basis and make all endeavours to conclude the proceeding at an early date, preferably within a period of six month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, before deciding the main maintenance case, the petitioner, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and all other concerned persons must be given reasonable opportunity to produce their evidence/materials in support of their respective claims in the aforesaid maintenance case. However, if despite opportunity given either the petitioner or the opposite parties fail to produce their evidence/materials in support of their respective cases, then the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara shall be at liberty to decide the main maintenance case on the basis of the materials available on record within the aforesaid period of time fixed by this Court. 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.753 of 2013 (2) dt.16-01-2013 This goes without saying that till the matter is finally disposed of, the petitioner, besides his two brothers, shall be obliged to pay the amount of interim maintenance to their old and infirm parents, as directed by the impugned order dated 15.1.2011. It further goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding with respect to the claim of maintenance made by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Entire matter stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)