Court held that matters of maintenance should be determined by trial courts, not during modification petitions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for modification of order dated 29.06.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15940 of 2020 whereby the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with a condition to pay Rs. 4,000/- (Four thousand) per month, as interim solace/maintenance, in the bank account of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of aforesaid order, petitioner is regularly paying aforesaid amount in the bank account of complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 but the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 does not wants to live with this petitioner and has already solemnized second marriage and, therefore, the order dated 29.06.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15940 of 2020 requires modification, so far as payment of Rs. 4,000/-, as maintenance, is concerned.

4. This Court, while allowing pre-arrest bail to the petitioner vide order dated 29.06.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15940 of 2020, on the submission of petitioner himself, had directed him to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim relief/solace to complainant/Opposite Party No.2 with observation that the aforesaid payment will be subject to any order passed in the maintenance case for final settlement. The issue of maintenance or the fact that the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 has already solemnized second marriage cannot be decided by this Court. It can only be decided by the concerned Court at the stage of trial after giving full opportunity to both the parties and as such, the modification petition cannot be allowed on this ground alone.

5. Accordingly, this modification petition is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)