IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1522 of 2008 BIMAL KUMAR BHAGAT …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANURADHA DEVI 3. PIRYANKA KUMARI 4. PALLAVI KUMARI 5. KAUSHAL KUMAR …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 05. 04.11.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner(husband) is aggrieved by order dated 11.08.2008, passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 157(M) of 2004 (Anuradha Devi vs. Vimal Kumar Bhagat), whereby on a consideration of materials on record including the oral evidence adduced on behalf of applicant-wife, learned trial court has found that applicant-wife was legally married to the petitioner and the wedlock produced three siblings who all are minors and putting up/residing with the wife who is living separately. It has also been found that husband has solemnized marriage with another lady. Learned trial court found that husband did not adduce any oral evidence with regard to his claim that the wife is able to maintain herself from the income generated by her. On the contrary, it has been found by learned trial court that no such plea/ground was taken in the show cause. It further appears that no witness was examined to demonstrate that the applicant-wife has any independent income to maintain herself. It has also been found by learned trial court that with regard to 2 upkeep/maintenance of the three children the show cause maintains silence. The salary statement/certificate was produced which has been taken into consideration and it has been found that husband (petitioner) has take-home salary of more than Rs.6100/-. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from record, learned court below has fixed a sum of Rs.2500/- as maintenance amount/allowance for the wife and three children. Learned counsel for the petitioner states with reference to Annexure-1 that petitioner (husband) has been remitting the amount on intervals to the applicant (wife) to support her. Under the impugned order, learned court below has directed payment of maintenance allowance with effect from 6.12.2004 without recording any reason therefor. It is also the submission that the wife is gainfully employed as teacher in a public school. However there is no such finding recorded by learned trial court based on materials produced before it. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties controverting the aforesaid stand of the husband (petitioner) based on (Annexure-1). Having regard to all these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the operative portion of the order impugned be modified in the following manner: “With regard to period between the date of filing of the application and the date of passing of the order(11.08.2008), the petitioner will be required to deposit a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- only. Petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month effective 3 from August, 2008.” From the findings, it appears that petitioner is serving in a government school. The trial court shall take effective steps to ensure that the dues, if any, in terms of the present order and/or current payment as per the present order are made available to o.p.no. 2(wife). With the aforesaid direction/observation, the application is disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )