IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1257 of 2008 RANJIT KUMAR @ RANJEET KUMAR Versus NEETA KUMARI@NITU DEVI@MUNI DEVI With C.R. No. 1258 of 2008 Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Versus Neeta Kumari @ Smt Nitu Devi @ Muni Devi --------- 2 14/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner in both the above mentioned civil revision applications. C.R. No. 1257 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 1.6.2007 and is barred by limitation of one year and three months, this Court has heard the petitioner on merit with an object that if there be any merit in the case the limitation may also be condoned. This Court finds that by order dated 1.6.2007, the petitioner admittedly husband of the opposite party, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- by way of maintenance pendente-lite and Rs. 1000/- as a cost of litigation in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order on two grounds, namely, that the wife was living in adultery and therefore she will not be entitled for maintenance and further that the quantum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as against income of the petitioner is absolutely exorbitant and excessive. While first point can be very well rejected by this Court on the ground that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution ensures a fundamental right a citizen of India including a married woman to live decently. Maintenance pendente-lite under Section 24 of the Hindu 2 Marriage Act is only an extension of that right. When a husband brings a suit for divorce and thereby coerces his wife, having no means to support herself during matrimonial case for contesting a litigation. She must be at least given minimum amount for her bare existence. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act thus also ensures right to life to during the pendency of a matrimonial case and in fact only engrains and secures the right narrated under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. That being so, the petitioner being husband may have liberty to make accusation of adultery against his wife but that cannot make the petitioner escape from liability of making payment of maintenance in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, and accordingly first ground of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. The next ground with regard to quantum of amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month is equally misconceived from the pleadings on record and its examination, the Court below has found that the wife has made assertion in her application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act that her husband has income from salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and has also other income from agricultural source. The petitioner has filed his reply in which he has stated that he has income from salary but did not choose to controvert the amount of salary. He, however, went to controvert other part of assertion of his wife that he had any income 3 from agriculture. The court below in fact has treated the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 3,000/- and therefore fixed the amount of Rs. 1,500/- as maintenance. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find that the amount of Rs. 1,500/- is either excessive or illegal. This Court having found that even there is no case of the petitioner on merit in C.R. No. 1257 of 2008, must reject the prayer of the petitioner for condoning the delay of 15 months pertaining to an order which was passed not only in his presence but also had affected the right of the wife, opposite party to get the amount of maintenance. The petitioner having successfully kept his wife deprived from the amount of maintenance for a period of more than a year cannot be allowed to have luxury of a litigation as and when he pleases and consequently there being no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than one year three months in filing of C.R. No. 1257 of 2008, the same must be dismissed on the ground of its being barred by limitation. Next C.R. No. 1258 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 17.6.2008, whereby and whereunder, all that the court below had done is that, it has directed the petitioner to comply the order dated 1.6.2007 with regard to payment of arrears and current amount of maintenance. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below has committed jurisdictional error by asking 4 the petitioner to first pay the amount and then press his application for amendment. In the opinion of this Court, such submission on the part of the counsel for the petitioner is fit to be rejected for the simple reason that if the petitioner wants to get a walk over in the matrimonial proceedings by not allowing his wife to contest the proceeding effectively and get the plaint amended, he cannot be allowed to take recourse to disobey the order dated 1.6.2007 directing him to pay the amount of maintenance. The said order has not been complied till date which ought to have complied immediately after 1.6.2007. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any error even in the impugned order dated 17.6.2008. Accordingly, the second C.R. No. 1258 of 2008 being also wholly devoid of any merit is dismissed. This Court in fact would find that there was definite intention on the part of the petitioner to harass and in fact put all sorts of inconvenience to his wife and accordingly while dismissing both the civil revision applications the petitioner is directed to pay a further cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be realized from him within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order by the Court below. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar