IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1317 of 2006 HARE RAM MANDAL Versus PARI DEVI ----------- 4 24.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 29.07.2008 and 10.9.2008. Pursuant thereto though the opposite party-wife is personally present but the husband-petitioner has not appeared. The Counsel for the petitioner also is not in a position to explain the absence of the petitioner. This Court would view this absence of the petitioner as deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. In fact this Court was of the view that a warrant of arrest should be issued for seeking his personal presence but it is the wife who says such severe order may not be passed against her husband the petitioner. Such approach of the wife opposite party would only go to show the spirit in which the opposite party-wife takes her husband. This Civil Revision application arises out of a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was also a divorce case being Matrimonial Case No. 24 of 2005. This Court is informed - 2 - by the counsel for both the petitioner and opposite party that there has been a compromise in the aforementioned divorce case and the Family Court is keeping a watch on the result of such compromise by directing the parties to appear almost once in a month. It is therefore, now apparent that the attitudes have changed and this is also reflected from the fact that the petitioner has taken his wife to his home in the District of Munger. The opposite party present in Court, also accepts this fact that she has been now living in her Sasural. Normally after noting this aspect, this Court had to close down the proceeding of this case which has stated above, is confined only to the maintenance matter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That however, cannot be the fate of this case. The opposite party in person states that though she has been taken back to the house of her husband but such is only by way of pretence to claim a compromise. She complains that as a matter of fact, her conjugal life has yet not been restored inasmuch as the husband- petitioner is living in Siuri near Durgapur in the State of West Bengal whereas the opposite party is living only in Munger with the parents of the petitioner. The opposite party, further says that she has definite information that her husband has in fact, entered into a second marriage - 3 - but she would still like to stay with her husband at Siuri in West Bengal and therefore, the life which has been now given to her by putting her at Munger with the parent of the petitioner, is not acceptable. In other words, she would question the compromise being offered to her in the Court below as that is not a solution to the issue unless she is taken back and has allowed to live with her husband at his place of posting. At this stage, Mr. T.N. Maitin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that he cannot object to the legitimate grievance of the wife- opposite party to live with her husband at his place of posting. As a matter of fact, it is right of the wife to live with her husband and in that view of the matter, this court would direct the petitioner to take back the wife, the opposite party to his place of posting and keep her with all dignity. In case, the wife complains any sort of mental or physical torture by the petitioner or her family members, this Court would take it as a contempt of the order of this Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already restored the relationship, the operation of the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month shall be kept under abeyance with effect from June 2007. In order words, the petitioner will be required to deposit - 4 - the amount of maintenance in terms of the impugned order till the month of May 2007 and the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of maintenance from 1.8.2005 to May, 2007 in the name of the petitioner in her Bank Account within three months from today. If however the petitioner does not deposit the amount in the aforesaid period and/or does not take the wife opposite party to his place of posting in the same period, this order staying payment of amount of maintenance w.e.f. June 2007 shall stand vacated and in that event the petitioner shall be liable to pay entire arrear and current amount as per the impugned order even if the wife opposite party is made to stay at her Sasural along with the parents of the petitioner. The Family Court will also now while monitoring the Matrimonial Case No. 24 of 2005 would ensure compliance of this order and in the event of any complain by the wife opposite party as against this order, would pass necessary orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Civil Revision Application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)