Dr.Quadir Parwez @ Quadir Pravej v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.877 of 2010 (2) dt.10-07-2012 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, claiming maintenance against the petitioner. From the order dated 20th April, 2010 it appears that service of notice upon the petitioner was treated to be valid and maintenance case was fixed for ex parte hearing due to his non-appearance in the case. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner appeared before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on 28.4.2010 and prayed for adjournment of the case for filing show cause and also prayed for recall of the order dated 20.4.2010 directing for ex parte hearing of the maintenance case. By an order dated 29.4.2010, petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for recall of order dated 20.4.2010 directing ex parte hearing of the case was allowed with costs and he was granted permission to file his show cause.

Since the maintenance case filed by opposite party no. 2 remained pending for quite a long time and the petitioner was delaying disposal of the aforesaid maintenance case, therefore, on 13.5.2010 opposite party no. 2 filed a petition for interim maintenance under the provision of section 125 (1) 2nd proviso of Cr.P.C.. On 14.5.2010 both sides were present and an efforts for reconciliation were made by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. Since efforts made for Patna High Court CR. REV. No.877 of 2010 (2) dt.10-07-2012 reconciliation between the parties failed, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance with effect from 13.5.2010 i.e. the date of filing of the petition for interim maintenance. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged on contract basis as medical practitioner and he is drawing a fixed salary of Rs.30,000/- per month only, and, therefore, the quantum of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.

4500/- per month is excessive and requires to be reduced. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the scheme for interim maintenance was introduced by the legislature by Amending Act 50 of 2001, coming into force with effect from 24.9.2001. The scheme for interim maintenance is obviously for the interregnum period for protecting the interest of the claimant during the pendency of the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 9.3.2010 and matter has not been finally decided till date, therefore, under the mandate of law, the interest of opposite party no. 2 is required to be protected. The petitioner, being a doctor receiving at least Rs. 30,000/- per month as salary, has been Patna High Court CR. REV. No.877 of 2010 (2) dt.10-07-2012 directed to pay Rs. 4500/- per month only, as interim maintenance to the opposite party no.

2. By any standard of reckoning, this Court does not find that quantum of interim maintenance is excessive. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, directing payment of interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad is hereby directed to decide the main maintenance case filed by the opposite party no. 2 expeditiously at an early date after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as also to the opposite party no. 2 to produce their materials/witnesses in support of their respective cases. All endeavors should be made to conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application stands finally disposed of. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)