IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1519 of 2008 TRIBHUVAN PRASAD SINHA Versus MEENA SINHA ----------- 2. 26.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly says that the petitioner has no difficulty and in fact he would treat it as his bounden duty in meeting entire expenditure over his daughter’s marriage and as a matter of fact earlier also he had incurred expenditure in the marriage of his first daughter. He, however, apprehends that the marriage of second daughter for which purpose the court below has directed him to make such payment, has not yet been fixed and therefore, there is every possibility of misuse of the amount to be deposited by him. Considering the aforesaid submission this court would direct the petitioner to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the Family Court and the Family Court after being satisfied on ascertaining the fact and obtaining affidavits of both the wife and daughter to 2 be married that the marriage has already been settled and a date fixed would disburse this amount to the wife opposite party for meeting necessary expenditure. In the event, the Family Court would find that the marriage of the daughter is yet to be fixed and performed on a specific date, it would keep the amount in fixed deposit scheme either in a nationalized Bank or in a Post office in Annual Recurring Deposit Scheme so that the same can be encashed at the time of marriage. With the aforementioned modification, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/