IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1453 of 2007 MINA DEVI D/O RAMCHANDRA MAHTO R/O VILL- PURAINA GORAI, P.S. CHANPATIA DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN (BIHAR) -- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJ MOHAN MAHTO S/O MAHANTH MAHTO, R/O VILL- BAHUARWA P.S. BALTHAR, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN. --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP. ----------- 04 30.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23rd July, 2007, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bettiah, in Maintenance case no.26M/95, whereby the learned Family Court, on consideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner was not bonafide. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. This is what the learned Court below has observed in paragraph no.8:- “8. At the centre of controversy is the 5 katha arable land which Mina Devi (P.W.6) received on the basis of compromise entered in the maintenance proceeding 11M/87. The controversial compromise petition dated 6-1-1993 filed in the proceeding of 11M/1987 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. strikingly reads that Mina Devi shall has no claim with regard to the arrear of the maintenance awarded in that case and she will have no further claim for future maintenance. It is on the basis of this compromise petition she was gifted 5 katha arable land through registered deed dated 18.12.1992. The final unraveling came when Raj Mohan Mahto (D.W.4) in para 4 of his evidence laid condition that if his wife Mina Devi (P.W.6) return the 5 katha arable land to him then he would be ready to give all maintenance to her. What imbibes from his evidence is that the 5 katha land given to Mina Devi is in the gard of her future maintenance as well. It is 2 not only reveals but also tantamount from her evidence that she is not ready to extricate the land from herself. Though Mina Devi had lashed out her husband never made attempts to take her back but Raj Mohan Mahto in para 3 of his evidence explicable says that he is ready to keep her. Not going to her matrimonial house nor showing any gesture to go is certainly a cardinal mistake on her part and that erodes the credibility of her allegation that her husband is not willing to keep her with him. Not showing any inclination by Mina Devi (P.W.6) to go and reside with her husband Raj Mohan Mahto (D.W.4) and her unwillingness to relinquish the gifted 5 kathas land leaves a trace of impact that she is flased by the idea to extort money and this explains what she has ostensible charged her husband of not keeping her with him and not giving maintenance. There is also an aroma of realism about her father being a law addict person. He is said to be a big litigant involved in 55 cases (Vide D.W.4 para 4), Money is also she wants. And that is the essence of this case.” This Court finds no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)