Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 833 (PAT)

Sanjay @ Srikant v. Veena Kumari

2005-09-15

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment 1. I.A. No. 3106 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing of this civil review petition. From the statements made in this application I am satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay. Accordingly the delay is condoned and the said interlocutory application is allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 3. The petitioner submits that this review petition is only for modification of order dated 24.2.2005 passed in Civil Review No. 166/2004 as well as order dated 23.9.2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 1002/2002 as he prays that some instalments be fixed with regard to payment of the arrears amount of maintenance ordered by this Court in the aforesaid cases. 4. Petitioner is the husband who had filed Divorce Case No. 27/1996 for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) in which the defendant (wife) filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the case, but the said petition was rejected by the 1st Additional District Judge, Begusarai on 1.6.2002, against which the defendant (wife) filed Civil Revision No. 1002 of 2002, which was allowed by this Court on 23.9.2004 setting aside the impugned order of the learned court below and directing the plaintiff (husband) to pay Rs. 2,000/- as monthly maintenance pendente lite to the defendant (wife) from the date of filing of the divorce case and it was also ordered that the arrears from the date of filing of the divorce case, namely, June 1996 till the date of the said order, namely. September, 2004 should be paid to the defendant (wife) within one month from the date of that order and future maintenance at the same rate should be paid for every month by 15th of the next succeeding month. Against the said order the plaintiff filed Civil Review No. 166/2004 but this Court dismissing the same on 24.2.2005 and affirmed the order passed in civil revision. 5. Against the said order the plaintiff filed Civil Review No. 166/2004 but this Court dismissing the same on 24.2.2005 and affirmed the order passed in civil revision. 5. It transpires that against the said two orders of this Court the plaintiff (husband) filed petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 5563/2005 in the Hon ble Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed by order dated 12.5.2005 and the Hon ble Apex Court affirmed the order of this Court. However, in the said order it was mentioned that learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client did not wish to proceed with the said petition and that he will approach the High Court. In the said circumstances this petition has been filed by the plaintiff for modification of the said orders of this Court praying that some instalments be fixed as he intends to comply the orders of this Court and pay the amount of maintenance as fixed but due to insufficiency of his income he is unable to pay the entire arrears of maintenance in one lump sum. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant (wife) vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) and submits that it is more than a year since this Court had passed its order in the civil revision but in spite of that the plaintiff has not paid a single amount towards maintenance as fixed by this Court. He further submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to comply the orders of the Courts of Law failing which consequences may follow. He further submits that the attitude of the plaintiff (husband) shows that he has no intention to pay any amount to the defendant (wife) and he is only trying to dilly dally the matter. He further submits that second review petition is not maintainable and hence the instant case is fit to be rejected outright. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite true that a second review petition is not maintainable but the instant petition has been filed merely for some modification of the order accepting the verdict of this Court and only praying for fixing some instalments to enable him to comply with the orders of this Court. 8. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances and also keeping in view the earnings of the plaintiff (husband) a lenient view is taken in the matter as the arrears of maintenance payable by the plaintiff (husband) to the defendant (wife) since June 1996, in which month the suit was filed, till September, 2005, the month in which this order is being passed at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and hence as per calculation Rs. 2,24,000/- is due with respect to the said arrears of maintenance. 9. In the said "circumstances, the plaintiff (husband) is directed to pay the said entire arrears of maintenance to the defendant (wife) in the court below within six months by monthly instalment, out of which the first instalment of Rs. 40,000/- should be paid by 15th of October 2005, the second instalment of the same amount by 15th of November 2005, the third instalment of the same amount by 15th of December, 2005, the fourth instalment of the same amount by 15th of January 2006, the fifth instalment of the same amount by 15th of February 2006 and the last instalment of remaining amount of Rs. 24,000/- by 15th of March, 2006. It may be mentioned here that this payment will be apart from the payment of future monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is to be paid by the plaintiff (husband) to the defendant (wife) each month, from the month of October, 2005, which should be paid by 15th of the next succeeding month till the pendency of the divorce suit, to the defendant (wife) in the court below. It is also made clear that the said amounts of maintenance will also be in addition to the cost of litigation, which had already been ordered by the learned court below earlier. It may be also noted that in case of plaintiffs (husband) failure comply with any of the aforesaid conditions all coercive actions prescribed in law should be taken against him by the learned court below including realisation/deduction from his salary, emoluments and deposits. 10. Accordingly earlier order of this Court dated 23.9.2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 1002/2002 as well as order dated 24.2.2005 passed in Civil Review No. 166 of 2004 is modified only to the aforesaid extent and thus this review petition is disposed of.