IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1075 of 2007 Afzal Karim son of late Jamaluddin r/o road no.7, Bagan Shashi Jamal complex P.O & P.S. Azadnagar, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. Singhbhum, East. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The state of Bihar 2. Praveen Kaushar D/o late Abu Lais ---Opp.Parties. with CR. REV. No.1206 of 2007 Parween Kausar w/o Afzal karim D/o of late Abu Lais r/o mohalla- Bhikhanpur, Gomti no. 3, P.S. Ishaque chak P.O. Bhagalpur, Dist. Bhalpur. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Afzal Karim S/o late Jamaluddin ---Opp.Parties. ----------- 09 12.07.2010 Both the matters arise out of order dated 30.05.2007 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Bhagalpur in Misc. case no. 6/06. Petitioner of revision no. 1075 of 2007 is the husband whereas petitioner of revision no. 1206 of 2007 is the wife. An application seeking maintenance from husband was filed by Parween Kausar (wife) on certain grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage was solemnized on 10.06.2001, and from the month of November 2001, the in-laws including the husband started pressurizing her for demand of dowry. On non-fulfillment thereof, she was ousted from the matrimonial home. Subsequently the husband (Afzal Karim) contracted marriage with another girl. The order impugned indicates that the husband ( Afzal Karim) was noticed whereafter he( husband) personally appeared in the proceeding and filed show cause on 30.07.2006. Thereafter he defaulted in appearance and 2 contesting the claim on all subsequent dates. Court was thus left with the evidence brought on record by the petitioner of the case, namely, wife. It appears that five witnesses were examined on behalf of the wife. On a consideration of the materials brought on record, it was found and held that the petitioner (wife) was tortured mentally and physically for fulfillment of demand of dowry and she was ousted from the matrimonial home and was not being maintained by the husband. It has also been found that wife requires maintenance as the she was unable to maintain herself. From the materials brought on record by the wife it has been found that the husband had an income of Rs. 18,000/- per months from his job in Wire Rod Mill in Tata Tisco Company at Jamshedpur. Having assessed the aforesaid income learned Family Court directed for payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife. The employer was accordingly directed to deduct from the salary of the petitioner and paid the amount to the wife. The second revision application being revision no. 1206 of 2007 ( Parween Kausar vs. State of Bihar & Anrs.) has been filed by the wife seeking modification/clarification in the order as it has not been indicated in the order impugned that from which date the wife shall be entitled to get the said maintenance. To this learned counsel for the husband/petitioner submits that the provision of law itself contemplates that if the date from which the said payment is to be made is not mentioned then the same shall be payable from the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 3 of Cr. Rev. no. 1075 of 2007 submits that payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife after having found that the husband was having income of Rs. 18,000/- only from his job is ex-facie excessive and needs interference. It is next contended with reference to certain documents brought on record that the salary of the petitioner ( Afzal Karim) is close to Rs. 12,000/- only. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party states that petitioner should not be allowed to take premium on his default. He had appeared in the proceeding and thereafter intentionally defaulted in appearance and in these circumstances, the Court below was left with no option but to consider the materials brought on record by the wife which was considered whereafter impugned order was passed directing payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of maintenance. It is further stated that in terms of the order impugned the wife is getting a sum of Rs. 10,000/- directly from the employer of the husband. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. From bare reading of the impugned orders it would appear that learned Family Court has found and held that the income of the husband/petitioner from his salary is 18,000/- per month. It is also seen from the record that the husband has contracted second marriage. Naturally he has to maintain his wife and other dependents in the family. Courts have on several occasions considered the reasonableness of the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife. Consideration of all relevant factors in this regard would be the number of dependent person to 4 be supported and maintained by the husband, the life condition/style of the parties and other sources of income available to the husband or not. The Court is also required to consider as to whether the wife by herself is able to maintain herself or not. These are thus the relevant considerations which have to be kept in focus while considering the potentiality of the husband to pay the amount of maintenance and quantum thereof. These considerations are not reflected from the impugned order. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and also keeping in view the fact that the wife is currently receiving a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner(husband), this Court is inclined to remit both the matters back to the Family Court concerned for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both husband and wife. Petitioner ( husband) shall be entitled to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence, and the wife, in that event, shall have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and bring on record further documents. Considering the age of the litigation, this Court directs the petitioner (husband) to appear in the Court below within a period of six weeks from today and adduce evidence which he proposes to adduce within three months thereof. It is clarified that the amount of maintenance, so fixed by the Court below under the impugned order, which the opposite party is already receiving from the employer shall not be stopped until final adjudication of the claim/counter claim. It is further clarified that the present 5 order passed by the learned Family Court shall not stand in way in passing fresh order after hearing both sides. I order accordingly. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)