Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 890 (PAT)

Prof. Ramesh Kumar v. Babita Kumari

2004-09-02

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, 2. This is a very unfortunate case in which the husband and wife, both having good backgrounds and three lovely children, are fighting only to satisfy their whims and for no obvious valid reasons and in the process doing their level best to destroy the career and future of their next generation. 3. This matter arises out of Matrimonial Suit No. 41/1998 which was filed by the petitioner (husband) against the opposite party(wife) for dissolution of their marriage under the Provisions of sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). 4. At present, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 8.1.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, allowed the petition of the opposite party under the provisions of the Act directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 72,000.00 (Seventy two thousand) which he had not paid in violation of the earlier order of that Court passed on 26.6.1999 u/s. 24 of the Act. 5. The short fact of the case is that in the year 1998 the petitioner filed the aforementioned suit for divorce, where after the opposite party appeared and filed a petition u/s. 24 of the Act for directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance as well as cost of litigation to the opposite party. The said petition was allowed by the learned Court below on 26.6.1999 by which the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1300.00 per month by way of maintenance as well as Rs. 4,000.00 as cost of litigation to the opposite party. This order was never challenged and it is admitted by the opposite party that the petitioner had paid the said amount of maintenance for several months, whereas the petitioner claims that he had regularly paid maintenance as per the said order. 6. It further transpires that on 24.6.2003 the opposite party filed a petition in the Court below claiming that the petitioner had stopped payment of maintenance from March, 2000, and hence the amount of Rs. 70,200.00 (Seventy thousand two hundred) had fallen due towards arrears of maintenance. The petitioner did not contest the said petition and hence on 6.8.2003 the learned Court below passed an ex-parte order directing attachment of petitioners salary. 70,200.00 (Seventy thousand two hundred) had fallen due towards arrears of maintenance. The petitioner did not contest the said petition and hence on 6.8.2003 the learned Court below passed an ex-parte order directing attachment of petitioners salary. After the said order the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 27.8.2003 stating that he had already paid Rs. 1,50,000.00 (one lac fifty thousand) to the opposite party who is also residing in his quarter, whereafter by order dated 29.8.2003 the learned Court below temporarily stayed his earlier order dated 6.8 2003. In the aforesaid circumstances, the defendant filed a petition in the Court below on 1.12.2003 praying that the question whether the said amount was paid, be decided. Hence, after hearing both the parties the learned Court below by the impugned order allowed the defendants Petition directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 72,000.00 (Seventy two thousand) to the defendant opposite party within 30 days as the Court was concerned only with the compliance of its order dated 26.6.1999 which was never challenged and had attained finality. It was held by the learned Court below that it had nothing to do with the transactions between the Parties regarding other matters and was also not concerned as to whether they were living in the same house or elsewhere. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order and submits that he is paying Rs. 3000.00 (three thousand) per month to his three children as per the order of the learned Court below dated 27.5.2004 in Case No. 70 (M)_ of 2003 and that he is also regularly paying the maintenance amount of Rs. 1800.00 per month to the opposite party as per order dated 26.6.1999 passed by the learned Court below in Matrimonial Case No. 41/1998. He further claimed that in addition to the aforesaid amount, he is also depositing in Court Rs.2000A every month in compliance of the order of the learned Court below dated 27.5.2004 as part of the alleged dues of Rs. 72,000.00 (seventy two thousand) during the pendency of this civil revision. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the opposite party is residing in the quarter allotted to him and due to her behavior and allegations he is practically ousted from his quarter, it is also contended that he had paid Rs. 72,000.00 (seventy two thousand) during the pendency of this civil revision. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the opposite party is residing in the quarter allotted to him and due to her behavior and allegations he is practically ousted from his quarter, it is also contended that he had paid Rs. 1,50,000.00 (one lac fifty thousand) to the opposite party in the year 2000 out of which Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) was paid in cash for which he has no proof, but Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) was paid to her by the petitioner by different drafts on 18.9.2000 which has never been returned and has to be adjusted against the amount of maintenance. 9. It is also the claim of the petitioner that by order dated 12.9.2003(Annexure-7) the learned Court below had directed the order of stay to continue and had directed the opposite party to furnish the details of branch of Bank where she had deposited Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) in the petitioners account and had also directed the opposite party to file requisites for calling for the report from the said Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order dated 12.9.2003 was never complied by the opposite party and hence there was no occasion for the learned Court below to pass the impugned order on 8.1.2004 and that too without considering the said earlier order which was passed by the predecessor of the learned Court below and without making any enquiry with respect to the return of the said amount of Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac). In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the learned Court below committed a jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the petitioner never paid Rs.50,000.00 (fifty thousand) to her and paid only Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac). In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the learned Court below committed a jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the petitioner never paid Rs.50,000.00 (fifty thousand) to her and paid only Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) by different drafts on 8.9,2000 which was paid not on account of maintenance but with respect to a settlement between the parties in the Complaint case filed by the opposite party against the petitioner for offences punishable u/s. 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 , but when, later on, the settlement failed she returned the said Rs.1,00000.00 (one lac) by depositing the same in the petitioners Bank Account No. 01190011075 at Purnea Branch of Allahabad Bank for which money receipt as well as the statement of Bank has been produced. The learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that with mala fide intention the petitioner closed his said account on 1.10.2001 and transferred the entire money to Mahendru Branch of the Bank where his Account Number is 01190022860. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party also contended that the order for payment of Rs. 1800.00 per month as maintenance was passed on 26.6.1999, hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) on 18.9.2000 as no such amount had fallen due till then. He further contended that from 11.3.1999 to 11.7.2003 (fifty two months) Rs. 97,600.00 (Ninety seven thousand six hundred) had fallen due out of which the petitioner had paid only an amount of Rs. 25,600.00 (Twenty five thousand six hundred) and hence Rs. 72,000.00 (Seventy two thousand) had fallen due which was to be paid by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the learned Court below. Hence, he submitted that the learned Court below was justified in passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 72,000.00 (Seventy two thousand) to the opposite party. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the original Bank receipt of Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) and the petitioners Bank statement produced by the opposite party, it is quite clear that the opposite party had deposited on 20.9.2001 Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) in the Account of the petitioner which he closed on 1.10.2001. 1,00000.00 (one lac) and the petitioners Bank statement produced by the opposite party, it is quite clear that the opposite party had deposited on 20.9.2001 Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) in the Account of the petitioner which he closed on 1.10.2001. It is also apparent from the record of the case that on 18.9.2000 only a small amount of maintenance was due and hence there was no occasion for the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) to the opposite party on that date on account of maintenance, Accordingly, I find that the payment of the said amount by the petitioner and return thereof by the opposite party had no connection with the order of maintenance passed by the learned Court below. It is clear that the said transaction was with respect to some other matter which is unconnected with the order for payment of maintenance. 13. So far the question of non-consideration of the earlier order dated 12.9.2003 passed by the learned Court below is concerned, it is apparent that since the Bank Account at Purnea was of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon him to produce the statement of his account after obtaining it from that Bank, but for reasons best known to him he never produced the same. 14. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the receipt of the deposit of Rs. 1,00000.00 (one lac) in the said Account of the petitioner at Purnea Branch of Allahabad Bank as well as the statement of his account of that Bank which is not denied by the petitioner and which fully proves the falsity of his claim that no such amount was ever deposited by the opposite party in his Accounts. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Court below is legal and proper and no jurisdictional error has been committed. Hence, this civil revision has got no merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.