IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.712 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR Versus SMT. SITA DEVI WITH C.R. No.1886 of 2007 ANIL KUMAR Versus SITA DEVI ----------- 5 1.7.2008 Heard Counsel for petitioner in both the civil revision applications arising out of a matrimonial suit. In the first Civil Revision Application No. 1886 of 2007, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.7.2007 fixing the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month as also Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation under Section in 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the second Civil Revision Application No. 712 of 2008, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22.4.2008 directing issuance of a distress warrant against the petitioner for having not complied the aforementioned order of payment of monthly maintenance. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month in the impugned order dated 31.7.2007 is against the materials on record specially when it is taken into consideration that the petitioner is only a Feriwala and has hardly an income of Rs. 20-30/- per day. This Court however is not impressed with such submission for a simple reason that such an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month cannot be held to be excessive. The Court below in fact has made a threadbare analysis of evidence of both the side while holding that the 2 petitioner is having income from business of manufacture and sale of mirror and that he also owns a house. In such circumstances, no error can be said to have committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order directing payment of Rs. 1,000/- per month for maintenance of the wife and his minor child. Consequently, that part of the order by which the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay the amount of maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- as consolidated amount towards the cost of litigation is upheld. Counsel for the petitioner next contends that it would be very difficult to give the entire amount of arrears in one go taking into account that the petitioner’s liability begins from 14.11.2005 when such an application came to be filed for this purpose. This Court taking into consideration the finding of the Court below that the petitioner is having a small business and it would be difficult for him to pay the entire amount of arrear in one go, would direct him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards the arrear in addition to Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of current monthly maintenance till he clears the entire amount of arrear from 14.11.2005 as directed by the Court below. The petitioner however will be entitled to adjust any amount which has already been paid by him to the opposite party on the head of monthly maintenance during the pendency of this application. The direction of the Court below would accordingly stand modified to the extent indicated above. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner has not made payment of the amount of maintenance as fixed by the Court below 3 in the order dated 31.7.2007 and the Court below by an order dated 22.4.2008 for realization of the said amount had issued a distress warrant which has been separately assailed by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 712/2008. Counsel for the petitioner had very vehemently submitted that there is no provision in the Hindu Marriage Act which the Court below could have passed the order for issuance of the distress warrant. In this connection, he had also referred to the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to support his contention that there is no similar power to the Family Court to issue distress warrant while dealing with a case under Hindu Marriage Act. This Court without going into the said issue of jurisdiction to issue a distress warrant for realization of amount under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, would quash the impugned order dated 22.4.2008 on the ground that now the petitioner himself has offered to pay the amount as directed by the Court below in the manner indicated above in this order. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below may be directed to ensure that the matrimonial case itself is disposed of at an early date. In the facts of this case, this Court would observe that the Court below will make its best endeavors to dispose of the suit at an early date preferably within a period of one and a half years from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations/directions, both the civil revision applications are disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)