Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32443 of 2012 ====================================================== Renu Kumari Daughter Of Sri Vikramaditya Singh R/O Mohalla - Gayatri Palace, Singh Colony Ward No. 14, Distt. Sitamarhi.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Vivek Ranjan Son Of Sri Beni Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Pokhar Bhinda, P.S. Sahiyara, District - Sitamarhi At Present Posted No. 13893111 Sep/Aa Through Commanding Officer, Military Hospital, Jamnagar, Gujrat C/O 56 Apc Pin Code 900265 .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajoy Kr. Singh No.1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 6 03-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is for initiating a proceeding of contempt against opposite parties for non-compliance of the directions given in the order dated 14.09.2009 passed in Cr.Misc. no. 32001 of 2009. The order of this Court dated 14.09.2009 was passed after consent of the parties and the agreed terms and conditions were as follows: “(I) The husband-petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month from today, i.e., from the month of September, 2009. Such payment shall be deducted from the salary of the petitioner by his employer and will be directly deposited in the Bank Account of the Informant- opposite party. This payment of Rs.7,000/- will continue for rest of life of the Informant and even after retirement of the petitioner from service the payment of such amount 2 shall be continued from the resources of the petitioner. (II) The petitioner and the informant shall file a joint petition seeking mutual divorce and the court below upon making enquiry from the opposite party no.2, the Informant, that she has been paid her amount of maintenance and arrangement has been made in this regard, would allow such mutual divorce. (III) Upon dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with opposite party no.2, the Informant by virtue of mutual divorce the present criminal case shall also stand withdrawn on the basis of joint application filed by opposite party no.2 and the petitioner. (IV) Any earlier amount payable by the petitioner to the Informant under any judicial order, including arrears thereof shall be paid by the petitioner to the informant without disturbing earlier arrangement of payment of Rs.7,000/- per month. Such amount of arrears in terms of order of the court below in the maintenance case, i.e., Rs.69646/- shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of his being released on bail. (IV) The petitioner, however, will not be liable to pay the afore mentioned amount of Rs.2, 000/- from the month of September, 2009 as the said amount of Rs.2,000/- per month would stand merged in Rs.7,000/- per month.” It has to be noted that the afore mentioned order in Cr.Misc. no. 32001 of 2009 was passed in which the opposite 3 party no.2 was the petitioner and the petitioner of this case was opposite party no.2. The grievance of this petitioner, in this application, is that the afore mentioned order was not complied by the opposite party no.2 and, in fact, by the opposite party no.3, the Authorities in the Indian Army. There is however no representation on behalf of opposite party no.2 though notices have been served on him. The opposite party no.3 has filed his counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the order of this court dated 14.9.2009, the Army Authorities had passed an order dated 28.5.2010 allowing payment of maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner of this case with effect from 14.09.2004 and arrear of Rs.69646/- was also decided to be paid. It has been also explained in the counter affidavit that due to internal mechanism of functioning in the Indian Army the transfer of amount in the account of the petitioner was not possible and as such steps were taken for sending the amount by money order but the petitioner has refused to accept that amount by making an endorsement “refused to accept”. This Court, therefore, would not go into any further aspect specially when the opposite party no.2 in the affidavit has undertaken the commitment to pay the amount, as 4 directed by the court but by way of money order. To that extent the statement made in paragraphs no.8, 9 and 10 in the counter affidavit of opposite party no. 3 being relevant, is quoted herein below. “8. That it is respectfully submitted that Army Medical Corps Record Office has approached to PAO (OR) AMC Lucknow vide Letter no. 47 40071/FA/ MA/ Gen dated 28.2.2012 with the request to explore possibilities to obtain approval of competent authority of your department for modification / relaxation in procedures for payment of maintenance allowance through bank facilities instead of through postal department to the above lady in compliance with High Court of Judicature at Patna order dated 14.09.2009 and recent order dated 01.02.2012, so that, contempt of the Hon‟ble Court order can be avoided, PAO (OR) AMC, Lucknow has intimated to the petitioner vide their letter no. LMP / FAMO / Corrs dated 12.3.2012 that „The procedure of payment of MAMO as advised vide your above cited letter appears to be appreciable but we regret to inform that it is not possible to make the payment of maintenance allowance to the concerned individual‟s bank account, as there is no such facility / procedure present in the system of this Office to the amount directly to the bank account of dependent of the PBOR (Personnel Below Officer Rank)‟. 9. That, it is respectfully submitted that Army Medical Record, Lucknow is only maintaining the service documents of the serving soldiers of the Army 5 Medical Corps and the payment to the individual is being paid by PAO (OR) Army Medical Corps, Lucknow. Therefore, this office is not able to provide any assistance regarding payment to the petitioner through Bank. Pay account Office (OR), Lucknow is a separate defence Establishment and holding the complete responsibility and accountability towards pay and allowance matters of Junior Commission Officer / other Ranks of the Army Medical Corps. facts the petitioner recommended 10. That it is respectfully submitted that in view of the aforesaid the Criminal Miscellaneous to be application of dismissed by this Hon‟ble Court with the direction to the petitioner to accept the maintenance allowance, which are being remitted through postal money order regarding by PAO ( OR ) AMC, Lucknow till the time the Government approval for remitting the maintenance allowance through banking will come in force.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the afore mentioned counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and a stand has been taken by her that the opposite parties have never remitted the amount of maintenance regularly to the petitioner. It has been also stated therein that the petitioner only on two occasions has received the amount through money order whereafter the amount was not sent to her. In paragraph 6 it however has been stated that the petitioner is ready to receive the maintenance amount through Money Order and, therefore, this Court should direct for payment of amount regularly to the petitioner by way of Money Order. In this affidavit it has also been stated that the amount of maintenance 6 payable to the petitioner is due since May, 2010. In view of the afore mentioned stand of the parties, the order of this Court dated 14.9.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 32001 of 2009 is modified only to the extent that whatever amount has been directed to be paid by this Court in the aforesaid order shall be paid to the petitioner by the Army Authorities by way of Money Order. This Court would also make it clear that it is not concerned as to how the Army Authority will make such payment to the petitioner till such payment is being made to the petitioner in the manner undertaken in the affidavit filed by them in this case. With the aforesaid observation and direction this
Decision
application is disposed of. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)