Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 1298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.
Md. Rafi son of late Sheikh Sabiullaha, resident of Mohalla- Baghmalu Khan, Lodi Katra, in front of Raj Optical Industries, P.S. Khajekala, Patna City, District Patna - Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sahin Kausar daughter of Md. Navi Hasan, wife of Md. Rafi, at present resident of Village Koilwar, P.S. Koilwar, District Bhojpur. - Opp. Party/s
Criminal Revision No.217 of 2009
Decided on: 28-09-2012
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Adv.
For the State: Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP.
For O.P. No. 2:Mr. Arshad Jameel Hashmi, and Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, Advocates.
The court has the discretion to adjust the quantum of maintenance based on the circumstances and previous court orders.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - The court confirmed the claim of maintenance for the wife and two minor children but slightly reduced the quantum of maintenance in line with a previous court order.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered a maintenance claim made by the wife and two minor children of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay a certain amount as maintenance, which was challenged on the grounds of excessive quantum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no legal infirmity in allowing the maintenance claim and confirmed the claim for the wife and children. However, the court slightly reduced the quantum of maintenance in line with a previous court order.
Issues: The main issue was the quantum of maintenance and whether it was excessive or required modification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the relationship between the parties, the financial circumstances, and the previous court order in determining the quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application with a modification and reduction in the quantum of maintenance. The petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of maintenance at the reduced rate within a specified period.
By the impugned order dated 13th December 2007 passed in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No. 17 of 2006 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara, the claim of maintenance made on behalf of the opposite party no.2 for herself and for two minor children, born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs. 1000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, being the wife, and Rs. 500/- per month for each of the two children, by way of maintenance, and thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay in all, Rs. 2000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are unanimous in their submissions that there is no dispute of relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and they are legally wedded husband and wife respectively. Further there is no dispute of relationship between the two children and the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has fathered those two children, presently living with the O.P. No.2.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of the impugned order only on the question of quantum of maintenance. According to him, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara is excessive and is required to be reduced/ modified.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that in view of the present day price rise and inflation, the quantum of maintenance cannot be said to be excessive by any standard, and, according to him, in fact, the quantum of maintenance is required to be enhanced.
5. This Court finds that by order dated 17.03.2009 passed by a Bench of this Court, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the opposite party no.2 for herself and for her two minor children @ Rs. 1750/- per month in all.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is making regular payment of maintenance amount to the opposite party no.2 as per direction issued by this Court on 17.03.2009. However, no such assertion has been made on behalf of the petitioner by filing any affidavit on his behalf.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that he is not having latest instructions about the compliance of the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2009 by the petitioner, and about the up-to-date payment of maintenance amount even at the aforesaid reduced rate by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2.
8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record as also on perusal of the impugned order dated 13th December 2007, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity committed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara in allowing the claim of maintenance made on behalf of the opposite party no.2 for herself and her two children, particularly in the background that there is no dispute of relationship amongst the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 and their two minor children living with the O.P. No. 2. The quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara also does not appear to be very excessive. However, this Court finds that a Bench of this Court had reduced the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1750/- per month by order dated 17.03.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the aforesaid order is being complied with by the petitioner constantly.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 13th December 2007 passed in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No. 17 of 2006 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara, so far it has allowed the claim of maintenance of the opposite party no.2 for herself and for her two minor children is hereby confirmed, but the quantum o
