IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.953 of 2007 NAVIN KUMAR PASWAN @ NAVIN PASWAN Versus SHANTI DEVI ----------- 2 22.08.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife-opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been assailed only on the ground that the court below had passed such an order without making any serious effort for re-conciliation. The Counsel for the petitioner in this regard was quite emphatic that it was the consistent case of the husband-petitioner before the court below that he had been desirous of settling his dispute with the wife-opposite party for restoring his relationship as man and wife but the court below, in a mechanical manner, has proceeded to pass the impugned order granting interim maintenance. On perusal of the materials on record, however it would be found from the evidence of the wife-opposite party that she had all along been tortured both physically and mentally as a result whereof initially she had filed a criminal case under Section 498A in which the husband- petitioner and his family members were made accused. In her evidence, the wife-opposite party had herself explained 2 that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal case, some sort of compromise was arrived at but, that also could not work out and the husband-petitioner cleverly, having driven her (the wife-opposite party) away, had instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal right. From the records, it would transpire that even the matrimonial court in the aforesaid suit of restitution of conjugal right had once again made an effort for amicable settlement and the wife-opposite party had returned to the house of the husband-petitioner but, that settlement also failed as she is said to have been again driven away by her husband, the petitioner of this case. All these events got supported from the conduct of the petitioner who then is said to have filed a divorce case for getting rid of his wife. The maintenance case by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in fact was filed by her only for her sustenance on account of the continued miseries inflicted on her. All these aspects have been gone into by the court below and therefore, the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the court below failed to make an effort for amicable settlement between the husband-petitioner and the wife-opposite party in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to be noted for its being rejected. When two such earlier attempts, once in a criminal case under Section 498A and again in the suit of 3 restitution of conjugal right, did not yield to any fruitful result and the parties were still at loggerhead, as would appear from the circumstance noted in the impugned order specially the filing of the divorce case by the husband- petitioner, it cannot be said that there was no justifiable reason for the court below to pass an order for interim maintenance. This Court however would still make an observation that if the petitioner is so sanguine and serious regarding amicable settlement, he would still be at liberty to file an application to this effect in the pending proceedings by first showing his bonafide by withdrawing the divorce suit and set out the terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon by both the parties for restoring the relationship. If the court below would be satisfied with such an offer of amicable settlement, it will proceed to defer the final hearing of this case by giving one more indulgence to the parties to restore their relationship by living together and if after keeping them under watch for a period of one year, it would find that the wife-opposite party has been treated with respect and dignity by the husband-petitioner, it would drop the 125 proceedings provided the divorce case is also withdrawn by the petitioner prior to such an order. For the time being, the petitioner, a constable in 4 the Government service, having sufficient means to pay the amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- must pay the arrears and current rent till the aforementioned proposal of the amicable settlement of the petitioner is finally worked out to the satisfaction of the both the parties. Such amount of maintenance therefore would be kept on being paid to the wife-opposite party till the withdrawal of the divorce suit and dropping of the maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the manner indicated above. Let it be noted that the counsel for the petitioner has also not questioned the amount of interim maintenance as a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is well within the paying capacity of the petitioner who is in Government service and is getting sufficient monthly salary as a Constable in the Police Department from which he can easily pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife-opposite party. That being so, this Civil Revision Application, subject to the aforesaid observations and directions is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)