IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.139 of 2009 BALLA DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 11.5.2009 The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 5.7.2008 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari in Misc.Case No.187 of 2005 has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f.7.1.2004. As this case was filed beyond the period of limitation, notice was issued to Opposite party no.2 and by order dated 2.4.2009, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7500/- towards balance of arrears of maintenance amount in the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order firstly on the ground that the same is exparte order; secondly the same has been passed without service of summons and thirdly the petitioner has filed a compromise petition which would be evident from the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner is a labourer and earns only a sum of Rs.70/- per day on daily wages. He submits that the assertion of the Complainant before the court below that the petitioner is a tempo driver and earns Rs.7,000 to Rs.8,000/- per month is false. Learned counsel for Opposite party submits that the complainant may be called for before this court to ascertain the 2 correct position. The Principal Judge in paragraph 2 of the impugned order observed that Opposite party (petitioner herein) did not appear before the court to contest the case, despite the service of notice through Nazarat and registered post. Thereafter, the case was heard exparte. Both the complainant and her mother namely Itwariya Devi along with two other witnesses were examined. Both of them have stated that the petitioner is a tempo driver and earns Rs.7,000- Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon section 125(4) and section 125(5) Cr.P.C. at times saying that the complainant is living in adultery and at times says that a compromise has been reached between the parties. He submits that the petitioner is a poor person and on account of his poor financial condition he has not been able to pay the maintenance amount to the complainant. Having heard counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, this court would like to give one chance to the petitioner to put forth his case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari which would be considered on its own merits. However, during the pendency of the case before the Principal Judge, the petitioner would continue to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month to the complainant by 10th of every subsequent month. The arrear amount would also be paid to her at the rate of 3 KHAN Rs.800/- per month in 12 equal monthly installments. It is made clear that the order of ad interim maintenance is purely temporary in nature and the same would not come in the way of court below in deciding the quantum of maintenance which requires to be paid to the complainant. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)