IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14312 of 2010 1. MD. NIZAM S/O KHALIL MIAN R/O VILL.- RATENPUR, P.S.- SAKARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY LAW AND JUSTICE, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. GULSHAN KHATOON W/O MD. NIZAM, D/O MD. USMAN R/O VILL.- CHHAURAHIYA, P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- 02. 25.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner who is stated to be the husband of respondent no.-2 is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2010 granting ad-interim maintenance to the latter of Rs. 1500/- per month on an application preferred by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is poor labourer and does not have the capacity to pay even Rs.1500/-. Distress Warrant have been issued in Maintenance Case No. 82 of 2008 on 14.12.2010. The petitioner is ready and willing to keep the respondent no-.2 as his lawful wedded wife. She was declining to do so. The impugned order notices the contention against the petitioner that he was employed in a factory in Calcutta and had income from landed property. It does not appear from the impugned order that this was denied by the petitioner much less has he made any statement in the writ application denying the assertion. The only submission reiterated is that he is a poor person. The impugned order notices that the respondent no.-2 had contended that the petitioner was refusing to take her back to the matrimonial home. 2 The Court in light of the aforesaid discussion and the solemn duty of the petitioner to look after his wife, does not find any reason to interfere with the order for ad- interim maintenance at this stage on any alleged plea of willingness to keep the respondent no.-2 in the matrimonial home, when the later has a different story to tell. That may be more appropriately a matter for reconciliation between the parties. Let the Family Court, Muzaffarpur, make all necessary endeavour for that purpose including the desirability of referring the matter to the Medication Committee. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 29.7.2010 which shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to take all defence in law in the Distress Warrants issued against him. The application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)