IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1708 of 2009 UDAY PANDEY @ NUNU PANDEY --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RINA DEVI W/O UDAY PANDEY --- OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate ----------- 09. 21.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party no.2 . The matter has been listed under the heading for orders on petition for consideration of interlocutory application (I.A.No. 432 of 2011) filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2/wife to modify the interim order dated 28.04.2010. This Court by the previous order adjourned the matter allowing time to both the parties to consider and agree to final disposal of the case. Today both the Counsels submit that the matter may finally be considered and disposed of. Heard both sides at length. Petitioner is husband. He is aggrieved by order dated 18.05.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M.R.No. 59 of 2008 whereby on a consideration of the materials brought on record by the wife a sum of Rs. 1500/- (Fifteen hundred) per month was directed to be paid to opposite party no.2 from the date of institution of this case. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the said order submits that the same was passed ex-parte. It is, however, fairly contended that earlier a petition on behalf of the petitioner/husband was filed seeking adjournment but thereafter no pairvee was made as the petitioner during the relevant time was endeavouring to obtain bail in related criminal case. It is, thus, contended that in the interest of justice the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter the Court may adjudicate on the claims of the opposite party no.2/wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that this Court may, in the meanwhile, direct payment of a reasonable amount as ad interim maintenance payable to wife w.e.f. January 2011. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has not paid a single farthing and the opposite party no.2 has been left to thrive on the mercy of her parents who are themselves incapable to support her. Counsel, however, fairly states that petitioner may be granted opportunity to contest the case by adducing evidence and bringing on records documents which he wishes to place on record in the proceeding but subject to the condition that he pays off at least 40% of the amount falling due in terms of the order impugned. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this 3 Court finds that the order was passed in the light of materials placed on record on behalf of the wife ( opposite party no.2). The petitioner could not contest the case by adducing evidence or bringing on record in support of his case. From the impugned order as well as submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this much is, prima facie, evident that the petitioner is husband of opposite party no.2 and that opposite party no.2 is not residing with him. Having regard to the fair stand taken on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. Accordingly, the present application is being disposed of by the following order:- The quantum of maintenance, fixed under the impugned order, is reduced to Rs. 600/- (Six hundred). The said amount is being granted by this Court as an ad interim maintenance. All the amounts falling due and/or payable to the wife from 01.05.2009 to 31st of March, 2011, as per the quantum of ad interim maintenance fixed by this Court, will be paid by the petitioner to wife (opposite party no.2) by way of Bank instrument and/or deposit in the Court below for her use within a period of 03 months from today. If the said amount is paid/deposited within the stipulated time the Court below shall permit the petitioner to contest the claim of opposite party no.2 by filling show cause and adducing evidence in support thereof. In that event the impugned order dated 18-05-2009, passed in M.R. No. 59 of 2008 shall not preclude the Court below from 4 passing a fresh order in accordance with law. However, if the entire amount, as fixed under the impugned order, is not paid and/or deposited within the aforesaid time the order dated 18.05.2009 shall revive and will be given effect to. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)