IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1652 of 2009

======================================================

Bijendra Das S/o late Bindeshwari Das, R/o village - Padwa, Nawatol

(Julhatoli), P.S.- Murliganj, Distt- Madhepura

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sunita Devi W/o Bijendra Das, D/o Bindeshwari Das, R/o village -

Padwa Nawtol (Julhatoli), P.S. Murliganj, Distt- Madhepura, at present

Village- Tuniyahi, P.S. & District Madhepura

.... .... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate

For the State of Bihar : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD

VERMA

ORAL ORDER

3

18-12-2012

By the impugned order dated 5th September, 2009

passed in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.49 of 2008 by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura claim of maintenance

made on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in terms of section 125

Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to

pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the

date of the filing of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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. However, he has assailed the impugned order only on

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1652 of 2009 (3) dt.18-12-2012

2/4

the ground that the quantum of maintenance allowed by the

learned Family Court is excessive, and this is required to be

reduced. It is contended that the petitioner is a daily wage earner

and has only small area of land. According to him, the petitioner is

prepared to keep the opposite party no. 2 as his wife, but she is not

prepared to live in her Sasural, and as such, the impugned order of

maintenance is not sustainable in the eye of law.

On close scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the

learned Family Court, and on the basis of other materials available

on record, this Court finds that the opposite party no. 2 filed the

aforesaid maintenance case claiming maintenance at the rate of

Rs. 5000/- per month. It was the case of the opposite party no. 2

that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.

2 was solemnised in the year 2003. According to the opposite

party no. 2, the petitioner is working as mason at Delhi and Punjab

and from which he has sufficient earning. He is having four bighas

of lands from which also he has sufficient income. However,

despite sufficient means, he is refusing to maintain the opposite

party no. 2 and is neglecting the claimant (O.P. No.2).

In the aforesaid maintenance case, evidences were led

from both sides. On behalf of the claimant-opposite party no. 2,

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1652 of 2009 (3) dt.18-12-2012

3/4

two witnesses were examined. On behalf of the petitioner also,

two witnesses were examined. On scrutiny of the evidence,

learned Family Court has recoded a finding of fact that when the

opposite party no. 2 was in her Sasural, the petitioner and other

members of his family attempted to kill her, and therefore, it was

concluded that the claimant-opposite party no. 2 has valid cause

for not living with the petitioner in her Sasural. However, taking

into consideration the income of the petitioner from his mason

work as also from his land, the claim of maintenance of the

opposite party no. 2 was allowed only at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per

month, though the opposite party no. 2 had prayed for

maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month.

In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not

find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting any

interference by this Court in the impugned order of maintenance.

The amount o