IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.515 of 2008 SHANKAR YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIBHA KUMARI ---OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 01.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In spite of vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, nobody has appeared on her behalf to oppose the application. Petitioner is husband. He is aggrieved by order dated 04.04.2008, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M.R. no. 5 of 2006 whereby, on a consideration of the materials on record including the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it has been found that the applicant/wife/opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per month from the petitioner. Factum of marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 is admitted. It is also admitted that husband has solemnized second marriage. It appears from the materials on record that the wife is not living with the petitioner since last few years. Both the parties were allowed to lead evidence and, in fact, evidence was led. A claim was raised on behalf of the applicant/wife that the husband has more than 10 bighas of land whereas it was averred on behalf of the husband/petitioner that the family has not more than 01 bigha of land. The Court found petitioner an abled person being landed properties. Accordingly, it has been found that the wife, who 2 was living in the ‘naihar’ was not being maintained by the husband and she is entitled to maintenance. A sum of Rs. one thousand was directed to be paid from the date of institution of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that capability of petitioner adjudged in the impugned order is unreasonable. It is next submitted that without assigning any reason the maintenance has been allowed w.e.f. the date of filing of the application. Learned counsel points out that even going by the case of the wife she was not allowed to live in the house sometimes in the year 2004 but the application was instituted seeking maintenance in the year 2006. In that factual background, the Court below was required to assign reasons for allowing maintenance w.e.f. the date of filing of application which has not been done. This Court finds substance in the said submission of the petitioner. Accordingly, while not interfering with the quantum of maintenance granted under the impugned order, this Court directs that the petitioner would be liable to pay the said maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) w.e.f. 1st of April, 2008 only. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction/observation. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)