IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1309 of 2008 MANORMA DEVI Versus MANU PRAJAPATI ----------- 4. 20.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Though there may be several aspects which can be gone into with regard to correctness of the impugned order what would really turn on the crucial issue of payment of maintenance to the wife-petitioner is that the specific defence of the husband opposite party with regard to there being an agreement on 10.5.2005 between him and his wife, the petitioner, that they would henceforth live separately on the wife receiving a payment of Rs.30,000/-, as incorporated in a document marked as Ext.A was never confronted to the wife-petitioner in course of her deposition. It has to be found that the said document dated 10.5.2005 contains only a narration of certain event with acknowledgement of the petitioner who is said to have put her signature on a revenue stamped paper and therefore, the contents of the entire narration in the document Exhibit-‘A’ had to be proved by confronting the aforesaid document to the 2 petitioner. From the deposition of the petitioner, which is Annexure 3/2, it would however transpire that the document in question Exhibit-‘A’ was not even shown much less confronted to her in course of her deposition and as a matter of fact the said document was exhibited only by way of Ext.A in course of deposition of the witnesses the husband opposite party after closure of evidence of the petitioner. As a matter of fact when the wife-petitioner in her cross- examination, to a suggestion given by her husband with regard to acceptance of Rs. 30,000/- as a condition for living separately by way of mutual agreement, had specifically denied the aforesaid fact, there was nothing before the court below to accept the version in the document. Exhibit- ‘A’ as a gospel truth. Since the impugned order is mainly based on consideration of the aforementioned document (Exhibit-A), which as noted above was not even confronted to the petitioner, this Court would find that the procedure adopted by the court below in deciding the matter definitely suffers from 3 jurisdictional error. That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the court below with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The matter being one relating to payment of maintenance to the wife- petitioner may be adjudicated and finally decided in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and/or direction this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/