IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33213 of 2009 Nawal Kishore Bharti, son of Late Shubhankar Thakur, village Bela Govindpur, PS Banmankhi (Sarsi), District Purnea – petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Rinku Kumari @ Rinku Devi, wife of Nawal Kishore Bharti and daughter Sri Mahanand Jha, 3) Niti Kumari, 4) Riti Kumari, daughters of Nawal Kishore Bharti, all residents of village Bahora, PS Banmankhi (Sarsi), District Purnea – opposite parties. 3. 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order, dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Maintenance Case No. M-176/2007 by which the court has granted ad interim maintenance of the wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ready to live with his wife and she too has filed a petition stating that she is willing to live with him. The affidavit in this court appears to be just opposite to his conduct. It has been noticed in the order, dated 17.10.2008 by the court below that the petitioner did not appear when the case was called out. It has also been noticed that on appearance the petitioner did not undertake that he is willing to maintain his wife. In fact when the court asked the petitioner about his monthly income, the petitioner is said to have stated in court that he earns Rs. 13,000/- per month. Thereafter, the court asked him to put the same on affidavit. It appears that thereafter the petitioner disappeared and did not appear to file the affidavit. Opposite party no.2 has been 2 pursuing this case in the hope and believe that her husband would settle the matter. On each and every date fixed by the court, the petitioner would be present or file a petition to delay the matter. Eventually on 19.1.2009 when the date was fixed for hearing on interim maintenance matter, the petitioner did not appear and as such the court passed the order impugned granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/-. In view of the aforesaid facts I find no anomaly in the order impugned. However, it would be open to the petitioner to settle the matter with his wife during the pendency of the proceeding. Accordingly I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned for the present. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)