IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.550 of 2008 SHIV SHANKAR RAI @ SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR RAI Son of Harihar Rai, resident of Village Ram Nagar Chakdaut, P.S. Patory, District-Samastipur ----- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Lalita Devi D/o Baidnath Rai, resident of Village-Hasanpur, P.S. Patory, District-Samastipur ---- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : M/S Choudhary Shyam Nandan and Alok Kumar, Advocate ------------- O R D E R The petitioner who is the unfortunate husband of the informant of Patori P.S. Case no.172 of 2005 and who along with others has been arraigned as accused therein, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 14.8.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in B.P.No.1026 of 2006 whereby while granting bail to the petitioner has directed him as agreed upon by him to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem respectively to the informant and her son from August 2006 through deposit in bank account of the informant. The wife Lalita Devi, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, submitted a written report before the Officer Incharge , Patori P.S. on 12.12.2005 stating inter alia that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 6.9.2003 whereat her father had presented Rs.1,31,000/- in cash apart from clothes, ornaments etc. It is alleged that six months after the marriage, all the accused persons demanded - 2 - that she get a motorcycle from her father and when she refused to oblige , she was subjected to torture in various manner. In the meanwhile a male child was born out of the wedlock. However, the demand for the motorcycle and her torture for non-fulfilment thereof did not stop and the husband would keep threatening the informant of solemnizing another marriage if the demand was not met and eventually on 10.11.2005 he, with the help of his parents and other family members, married one Sulekha Devi. It is said that out of fear she left the matrimonial home on 6.12.2005 and coming to her father’s house filed the instant case. The police after due investigation finally submitted a chargesheet only against the husband under Sections 498A and 494 I.P.C. Assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted that the Sessions Judge while hearing a bail petition had no jurisdiction to direct for payment of maintenance which falls within the ambit of jurisdiction of the Family Court. The informant not having filed any case for maintenance could not be the beneficiary of an order for maintenance and that too in a prayer of the accused for bail. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had already filed Divorce Case no.61 of 2005 in the Family Court at Samastipur on 25.11.2005 and the instant case was filed by the informant-wife as a counter-blast thereto. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that both the parties were present in court at the time of hearing of the bail petition - 3 - and the court having heard both parties recorded the following order:- “Both sides are physically present in court. Petitioner is ready to keep the informant with full honour and dignity as his wife, but the informant submits that since second wife is there, her life and life of her child is not safe in the family of the husband. However, she submits that husband should return back the entire dowry amount to her and pay maintenance and share in the property to her child. Considering the fact and circumstances as well as period already undergone by the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10, 000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below. As agreed by the petitioner, he shall pay Rs.1000/- to the informant and Rs.500/- for his son to the informant per month from August 2006. The amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the informant. This order shall be followed till any other competent court decides any other amount of maintenance for the informant. If the petitioner will not obey this order that would amount the disobedience of this court’s order and necessary action would be taken against him.” From the impugned order, it would appear that the same was a consented order with the petitioner husband agreeing to make provision of maintenance to the wife and son. Having committed himself to make such payment in open court, whether for the purpose of purchasing the bail or otherwise, he cannot now fall back and - 4 - question the legality and validity of the impugned order, that too when there is no allegation that he was forced into giving his consent. I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 20th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R