Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1390 (PAT)

Md. Rafi v. State Of Bihar

2012-09-28

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2012
ORDER 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. 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 of maintenance is slightly reduced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1750/- per month in consonance with the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by a Bench of this Court. The petitioner shall now be obliged to pay the arrears of maintenance, if any, at the aforesaid reduced rate of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1750/- per month in consonance with the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by a Bench of this Court. The petitioner shall now be obliged to pay the arrears of maintenance, if any, at the aforesaid reduced rate of Rs. 1750/- per month from the date of the order, i.e. 13th December 2007 within a period of three months from today. He shall further be obliged to keep on paying the maintenance amount at the aforesaid reduced rate of Rs. 1750/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 on month to month basis, as directed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara, unless and until any contrary or different order is passed by any competent court. 10. In the result, the application stands dismissed with modification and reduction in the quantum of maintenance, as indicated above. 11. If the petitioner fails to deposit the arrears of maintenance within the aforesaid period of three months fixed above, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara shall be at liberty to take all possible coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of maintenance as also current amount of maintenance as fixed by this Court.