IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1247 of 2008 1. DHANRAJ CHOUDHARY 2. RAMSAWARI DEVI @ BHAGJOGNI DEVI, WIFE OF DHANRAJ CHOUDHRY …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHARDA DEVI WIFE OF JAIPRAKASH CHOUDHARY …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 03. 14.07.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioners assail the order 25.08.2008, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran (Motihari) in Maintenance Case No.154/05 (Jaiprakash Choudhary vs. Sharda Devi). Wife of Jaiprakash Choudhary(son of petitioners herein) filed an application seeking maintenance. The said matter was considered and by order dated 02.02.2008 the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per moth as maintenance for his wife and daughter. The husband defaulted in making payment. Consequently, a distress warrant was issued. The court below thereafter took steps to ensure compliance of the order passed in favour of wife of the son of the petitioners herein. In an endeavour to realize the due amount the concerned circle officer was directed to put the land on auction. The petitioners herein approached the court with a claim that the land which fell in share of their son was re-conveyed by him in favour of mother(petitioner no.2) by means of a sale-deed. It was thus prayed that the land belonging to the petitioners (parents of Jaiprakash - 2 - Choudhary) cannot be put on auction. Learned trial court considered the claim of the petitioners and refused to accept the same in the following manner: “From the application filed by one Dhanraj Choudhary, father of Jaiprakash Chaudhary, it is apparent that maximum of the land which was allotted to Jai Prakash to his share is said to have been sold by him in the name of his mother. It appears quite improbable that if any son executed sale deed be in the need of money, then he will sell the land in favour of his mother. Parents are expected to help their children at the some time the children are expected to help their parents. But it is not acceptable to my conscience that a son will sell the land in favour of his mother. From schedule attached to the petition filed by Dhanraj Chaudhary it is obvious that Jaiprakash Chaudhary has no land.” From perusal of the impugned order this Court is of the view that learned family court is devising methods to ensure that order dated 02.02.2005 granting maintenance to the wife and daughter is complied with. Petitioners herein are not in a position to state before this Court that any amount was paid by their son to the wife in terms of the order dated 02.02.2005. This Court declines to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )