IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.99 of 2010 Shambhu Yadav son of late Basudeo Yadav R/o Vill-Mudila, P.S. Ramnagar Dist. West Champaran --- Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Bihar 2. Sita Devi W/o Shambhu Yadav 3. Mamta Rani, D/o Shambhu Yadav 4. Ravi Bhushan son of Shambhu Yadav All are R/o vill-Mudila P.S. Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran, at present Muhalla Chhauni, P.S. Bettiah, dist. West Champaran. ---Opp.parties. with CR. REV. No.434 of 2010 Sita Devi W/o Shambhu Yadav, R/o vill- Mudala Harinagar, P.S. Harinagar Dist. West Champaran ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Shambhu Yadav son of late Basu Yadav R/o vill Mudala Harinagar, P.S.Ramnagar/Harinagar, Dist. West Champaran. ---- Opp. Parties. In Cr. Rev. no. 99 of 2010 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State :Mr. B.P.Singh, APP For the O.P. nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate. In Cr. Rev. no. 434 of 2010 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the O.Ps : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, For the State : Mr. R.N.Jha, APP ----------- 04 16.05.2011 Heard both sides. In Cr. Rev. no. 99 of 2010 the husband is petitioner whereas in Cr. Rev. no. 434 of 2010, the wife is the petitioner. Both the husband and wife are aggrieved by the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bettiah, in maintenance case no. 70 of 2006, whereby on a consideration of the materials on records, learned Court below disposes of the application seeking maintenance in the following manner:- “13. On the basis of aforementioned 2 observation the maintenance case is partly allowed. The O.P. Sambhu Yadav is ordered to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of Rupees one thousand each to Mamta Rani and Ravi Bhusan from the date of filing of the case i.e. 25.4.2006 by 15th of each English calendar month. Mamta Rani will be entitled for maintenance till her marriage and Ravi Bhusan will be entitled for maintenance till attaining of his majority.” The husband ( in Cr. Rev. no. 99 of 2010) submits that on the date of filing of the present application i.e. on 25.04.2006, the opposite party no.3, Mamta Rani had definitely attained majority as would be apparent from her affidavit and deposition. It is next contended that the son opposite party no.4 has also now attained majority and as such he may not be entitled to maintenance from the petitioner/husband. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.3 shall not be entitled to maintenance since she has attained majority on the date when the application was lodged. It is submitted, with reference to Annexure-1, that opposite party no.3 was not an applicant seeking maintenance and as such learned trial Court committed error in granting maintenance in her favour. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that there is no specific finding in the order based on materials on record that opposite party no.3/ daughter was major on the date when the application was lodged by the wife opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that law is well-settled that the major daughter shall also be entitled to maintenance till she is married. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments:- 3 (i) (2002)5 SCC 422 para 4 (Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata & Ors.) (ii) 2002(4) PLJR 476 ( Yugeshwar Nath Mishra vs. Arpana Kumari & Anr.) (iii) 2004(1) PLJR 338 (para 7 and 8). ( Subhas Roy Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar & ors) It is next contended that if the son had attained majority then the petitioner has a remedy in approaching the Court invoking jurisdiction conferred under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short „the Code‟) for altering/amending the order. Cr. Rev. no. 434 of 2010 has been preferred by the wife assailing that part of order whereby she was refused maintenance on the ground that there was an agreement reached by and between the husband and wife for her permanent maintenance and 12 kathas of land was conveyed in her favour and as such she was not entitled to further maintenance although she was found to be the first wife of the opposite party no.2/husband. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned Court below failed to keep in focus the subsequent developments taking place in the case. In the year 1978 on a claim raised by the wife she was allowed maintenance in the sum of Rs.100/- (One hundred) against which the husband preferred revision which stood dismissed. In the year 1979, a settlement was arrived at between the parties whereafter 12 kathas of land was/were conveyed by the husband to the applicant/wife for her maintenance. Subsequently the 4 wife/petitioner was restored to the matrimonial home in 1985 and they lived as husband and wife which produced one daughter (opposite party no.3) and a son (opposite party no.4). After allowing her to live with the husband for about 10 years she was again ousted from the matrimonial home. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner‟s wife, in the changed circumstances, had to take care of her son and daughter also. This was not taken care of by the Court below while disallowing maintenance in her favour. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2/husband, on the other hand, submits that the wife was satisfied with the agreement and conveyance of 12 kathas of land in her favour till 24.04.2006. She disposed of the said property for a considerable amount and on the following day the application was lodged seeking maintenance for herself and opposite party nos. 3 and 4. It is submitted that learned Court below considered those aspects of the matter and refused to grant maintenance in favour of the wife. Dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the parties in Cr. Rev. no. 99 of 2010, it appears that the Court below has granted maintenance to the daughter as well as son. Materials on record definitely indicate that on the day when the application was lodged opposite party no.3 Mamta Rani was major. No claim, therefore, could have been raised by the mother without filing her Vakalatnama and thus making application on that behalf also. It appears from Annexure-1, that Mamta Rani (opposite party no.3) is not the applicant. In that view of the matter, this Court is 5 inclined to interfere with that part of the order whereby Mamta Rani was allowed maintenance till her marriage. This Court, however, hastens to add that the present order may not be construed as an expression and/or view of this Court on the claim of Mamta Rani to receive maintenance from her father till her marriage. This, Court, therefore, grants liberty to aforesaid Mamta Rani (opposite party no.3) to approach Court below seeking maintenance for herself which shall be considered in accordance with law. As about the son, Ravi Bhushan (opposite party no.4) is concerned, it appears the Court below has granted maintenance in his favour in the sum of Rs. one thousand per month till his attaining majority. If the case of the petitioner/husband is that the son has attained majority then it is open for the petitioner/husband to approach the Court for modification/alteration in the order in terms of the provision contained under Section 127 of the Code. This disposes of Cr. Rev. no. 99 of 2010. Coming to the case of the wife ( in Cr. Rev. no. 434 of 2010) it appears that while refusing her claim to maintenance learned Court below observed as under in para 10:- “10. The petitioner has admitted herself and also filed documentary evidence to show that she had already filed a case for maintenance which was dismissed in terms of compromise. The O.P. has executed sale- deed of 12 kathas of land in her favour. From perusal of the record it is evident that the present case has been filed on 25.04.2006 and the petitioner has sold the gifted land for consideration money of rupees one lac twenty five thousand on 24.4.2006 i.e. one day prior to filing of the 6 case. After next day of execution of the sale- deed she had filed the present case. As such it cannot be said that she had no sufficient means for her maintenance. Moreover when the earlier case of maintenance was dropped on the basis of compromise, she is not entitled for maintenance.” From the materials on record, it appears that such agreement/compromise was arrived at by and between the husband and wife in the year 1979. The actual terms of compromise is not before this Court as neither the wife/petitioner nor the husband/opposite party no.2 has brought on record the aforesaid order. It further appears from the case of the parties that after the said compromise resulting in conveyance of 12 kathas of land in favour of applicant/wife, the husband and wife again agreed to live together and accordingly she was allowed to live in the matrimonial home on and after 1985 till 1995. This 10 years of living together as husband and wife resulted in birth of the son and daughter. The situation, therefore, appears to have changed. In that view of the matter, the Court below was not justified in outrightly rejecting her claim for maintenance. However, having regard to the materials on record including the fact that the wife had received considerable amount from sale of the land conveyed in her favour by the husband, this Court is satisfied that a sum of Rs. 600/- (Six hundred) per month would be adequate for the maintenance of the wife. Accordingly the application ( Cr. Rev. no. 434 of 2010) is disposed of in the manner that the wife would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 600/- (Six hundred) per month as maintenance for herself w.e.f. the date of filing of application. 7 However, in the particular facts of the case, it is observed that if the husband/petitioner pays off to the wife 50% of the amount falling due, as per the quantum of maintenance fixed by this Court till 31st December 2009 within 03 months from today, the same shall satisfy the entire arrear amount of maintenance to which the wife would be entitled to receive from the husband. If the husband fails to pay 50% of the said amount within 03 months from today then he would be entitled to pay a sum of Rs. six hundred w.e.f. 25.04.2006. This disposes of Cr. Rev. no. 434 of 2010. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)