IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.213 of 2009 Sheikh Jalaluddin s/o Sheikh Shaukat, r/o village – Lakhaura, P.S. Lakhaura, District – East Champaran …. Appellant Versus Husan Ara Khatoon @ Husan Arra Khatoon @ Husan Arra, w/o Sheikh jalaluddin, r/o village - lakhaura, P.S. – Lakhaura, District – East Champaran ….. Respondent ----------- For the appellant: Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, Advocate --- 6 19/1/2010 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant - husband and Mr.Sunil Kumar No.III, learned counsel for the respondent – wife. In this appeal the sustainability of the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case no.91 of 2008, is called in question. The facts which are revealed from the order impugned are that the wife filed an application for grant of maintenance asserting that she had entered into wedlock with the respondent therein 16 years back before preferring the application and in the wedlock three children were born. It was pleaded that she was driven from home six years before and was unable to maintain herself and is dependant upon her maternal grand-father. It was contended that 2 the husband was having a bag factory and has huge chunk of landed property and it was obligatory on his part to maintain his wife and the children. The stand and stance of the wife was combatted by the husband stating, inter alia, that a compromise was arrived at in a proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and certain land was given by the husband to the wife and further she is a lady of loose character and had left the matrimonial home without any reason and hence, she was not entitled for any maintenance. It is discernible from the order impugned that the learned Family Judge has adverted to the factual matrix and the documents brought on record and come to hold that the respondent is working in a bag factory and has substantial income from the same; that he owns landed property; that she is legally wedded wife of the husband – respondent and three children have been born in the wedlock; that the children are minor and, therefore, all of them were entitled to maintenance from the father; and that Rs.1600/- per month would be 3 adequate towards maintenance to sustain the wife and the children. Criticizing the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Family Judge has not taken into consideration that there was a compromise at one point of time and the whole controversy had been put to rest. It is urged by him that the appellant ,namely, Sheikh Jalaluddin works as a majdoor in paddy field and, therefore, the amount that has been determined by the learned Family Judge towards maintenance is on higher side and deserves to be reduced. Controverting the aforesaid submission Mr. Sunil Kumar no.III, learned counsel for the respondent – wife has submitted that though a compromise petition was drafted to be entered into between the parties but the same was not signed by the husband and, therefore, reliance placed on the same is baseless and misconceived. It is further submitted that the allegation made by the husband was not proven and it is beyond any pale of doubt that the marriage was solemnized 4 and she was driven from home after expiry of ten years of marriage and in the wedlock three children were born, who are minor. It is also canvassed by him that the amount that has been fixed by the learned Family Judge is absolutely justified and there is no warrant for interference with the order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Judge and on scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, we are inclined to think that the learned Family Judge has adverted to the detailed facets as regards status of the parties, the income earned and number of dependants and then fixed the maintenance . In our considered view taking into consideration the price index, the determination of Rs.1600/- towards maintenance cannot be faulted with and resultantly the appeal being, devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)