IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1121 of 2006 ARUN KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 2.9.2008. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No.558(M) of 1983. It appears that the opposite partyno.2 is wife of the petitioner. Maintenance Case was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner as back as in the year 1983. The maintenance was ultimately allowed by Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.9.1994 passed in Cr.Revision No.142 of 1992 and the petitioner Arun Kumar Sinha was directed to pay Rs.1500/- in total as maintenance to the opposite parties from the date of filing of the application i.e. 26.9.1983 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to each three opposite parties. This petitioner preferred SLP before the Apex Court, which was also dismissed on 17.4.1995 vide SLP No.1333 of 1995. In the year, 2006, this petitioner also filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing Cr. W.J.C. No.57 of 2006 against the order dated 14.9.1994 passed by Hon’ble Court in Cr. Revision No.142 of 1992, which was also dismissed by order dated 6.12.2006. It further appears that on 10.8.2004, the opposite party no.2 filed a petition for realization of arrears of maintenance from 26.9.1983. However, vide order dated 22.6.2005, the learned Family Court after hearing both the parties allowed payment of arrears of - 2 - maintenance to opposite party nos.3 and 4 who are sons only up to the date on which they attained majority. So far payment of arrears of opposite party no.2 is concerned, the learned Family Court directed to issue distress warrant for realization of arrears of 12 months only before the date of filing of the petition dated 10.8.2004. The petitioner in paragraph-5 of the application as mentioned that he was suspended on 25.3.1992 and dismissed from service on 18.8.1994. However, this averment is apparently wrong. It appears that he is still in service. Now he is posted in Patna Municipal Corporation and the current maintenance is being paid out of his salary. Through impugned order, the learned Principal Judge has disposed of eight applications of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is in habit to filing petition after petition, mostly frivolous, in order to avoid payment of maintenance amount. I have gone through the impugned order. The court below has given detail reasons for dismissal of all the petitions. The petitioner even filed petition before the lower court for revising the order passed by the High Court which has already been confirmed by apex court in 1995. Para-9 of the order would go to show malafide intention of the petitioner in filing such petition. The petitioner appeared in person and made submission. However, apart from harping on his old submission challenging the above order of High Court confirmed by apex court, no fruitful submission was urged which requires any consideration. - 3 - N.H./ Accordingly, this application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )