IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.479 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Kamini Kumari, wife of Sri Arun Kumar Mukherjee …Opposite parties For the petitioner :Mr. Ashish Kumar & :Mr. Surendra Kumar For o.p.no.2 :Mr. Sunil Kumar & :Mr. Ranjeet kumar For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya,APP ----------- 2. 16.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Husband (petitioner) is before this Court challenging the quantum of maintenance fixed under the impugned order dated 19th December, 2008, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, and Nalanda at Biharsharif in Maintenance Case No.26M of 2003. It is admitted at Bar that the applicant-wife (o.p.no.2) earlier filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein learned court below on a consideration of materials on record directed the husband- petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. It is also admitted that she is continuously in receipt of the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that in terms of Panchnama which was before the court a suit was filed wherein a decree has been passed whereby the petitioner has been allotted Schedule ‘Gha’ wherein only 0.34 decimals of land 2 have been allotted to him. It appears that the case of the petitioner consistently was that the shop was open subsequent to the agreement/panchnama (Ext.A) which stood in the name of his brother who is the owner. Learned court below has placed reliance on Ext. A to D series in order to come to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner that the shop in question owned by his brother has not been proved. Going by the decree which was passed subsequent to the order impugned prima facie it appears that petitioner has been given only a small trace of land in his share. This Court is remindful of the fact that in a proceeding under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife has already been directed to be paid certain amount and the husband is paying the same. Having regard to the materials on record and after hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that quantum of maintenance fixed under the impugned order requires to be suitably modified. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance fixed under impugned order is reduced to Rs.1000/- per month. With this modification only in the quantum of maintenance amount, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )