IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.79 of 2011 JAFIRULLAH KHAN, SON OF SAHID KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MARPA, P.S.- KANHAULI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAMILA KHATOON, WIFE OF DILKAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MARPA, P.S.- KANHAULI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ----------- 4 14.02.2011 Heard both parties. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party which is on record. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.11.2010 whereby his application filed on 31.01.2006 was taken up, considered and rejected. It appears from the facts available on record that by order dated 31.01.2003 passed in Misc. Case No. 31/99. Final adjudication was made in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short “the Code”) whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance amount of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the wife (O.P. No.2) and Rs. 500/- for the maintenance of the son. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed revision application before the learned Sessions Judge which stood rejected, whereafter he approached this Court in Cr. Misc. 2 No.16987/04. The said application was permitted to be withdrawn on 17.10.2005 (Annexure-4) with the liberty to approach the court below under Section 127 of the Code. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Code which was however, not pressed and remained pending for all these years. It is the case of the petitioner in view of a settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner had executed a sale deed in respect of 25 decimals of land in favour of his wife (O.P. No.2) However, it appears that since some of the issues agreed upon between the parties were not adhered to and carried out by the husband as a result thereof the wife made an application seeking permission of the Court to withdraw her earlier application which was allowed by the order dated 18.09.2006 (Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit). The matter thereafter remained hibernating. The petitioner did not press his application filed in the year 2006. Ultimately the said application was pressed in the year 2010 which was considered and rejected by the impugned order giving rise to the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits his client would be agreeable to make payment of 3 outstanding dues in installments. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submits that she would be agreeable to modify maintenance amount falling due till the date of present order provided the same is paid within a particular time frame. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. An agreement was arrived at between the parties whereunder the petitioner was obliged to convey part of his land in favour of the wife. It is admitted position that the sale has been executed in favour of the wife (Annexure-6). Learned counsel for the opposite party at this stage submits that possession thereof has not been made over to her. If that be so, this Court grants her liberty to approach the court below in this regard who will pass appropriate order after hearing the parties. As noticed above, this is evident that the petitioner on reaching an agreement had to part with his land in favour of the wife. Having regard to the materials on record and after hearing both sides, this Court is satisfied that if 70% of the amount falling due as per the order dated 31.01.2003 is paid to the wife within installments then the same, in the facts 4 and circumstances of the case, would satisfy the entire dues falling due till the date of present order, provided the petitioner continues to make regular payment of maintenance amount as fixed by the court below with effect from February 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for non-payment of the amount falling due, he is in custody since 17.07.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner would deposit/pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within three weeks and file appropriate petition in the court of learned S.D.J.M. It is further contended that thereafter he will deposit the remaining amount lying in arrear till the date of present order within eight months in four equal installments. Let the petitioner first deposit/pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the court or pay the same to the wife through demand draft drawn on a Scheduled Bank favouring the Opposite Party no.2 and file affidavit in the court below. No sooner such petition is filed and the court is satisfied about payment/deposit of the said amount, the court below in seisin of the matter shall release the petitioner on provisional bail for a period of eight months therefrom on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand). Father of the 5 petitioner shall stand as a bailor in this case. Court below shall fix the installment for clearing the amount falling in arrear as per this order. It is further clarified that in the event the petitioner defaults in complying any of the conditions contemplated in the present order and/or the schedule of payments to be fixed by the court below, the application filed by the petitioner before this Court shall stand rejected. In other words, all the terms and conditions contemplated in the order dated 31.01.2006 shall stand restored and the court below shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. It is further clarified that if the petitioner makes entire payments of outstanding dues as per schedule fixed by the court below then the bailor(s) would be discharged of liabilities of bail bond(s). Let the order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Amrendra/- ( K. K. Mandal, J.)