IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.970 of 2007 MD.MERAJ ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 2.4.2009 The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Purnea, in Case No.M-26 of 2002, by he has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to Opposite party no.2 and Rs.500/- to Opposite party no.3 by way of ad interim maintenance. The petitioner assails the aforesaid order on two counts; Firstly he denies factum of marriage and state that no document of marriage has been filed. Secondly, section 9 of the Family Court Act, 1984 mandates that it is the duty of the Family Court to make efforts for conciliation. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision in the case of Smt. Hina Singh Vs Satya Kumar Singh, reported in A.I.R. 2007 Jharkhand 34. The Opposite party no.2 has filed an application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. She has claimed to be wife of the petitioner. It also appears that earlier she has filed a case under section 498A of the Penal Code against the petitioner. It would appear from the impugned order that the Family Court was conscious that the petitioner who was Opposite party before the learned court below has disputed the factum of marriage. Learned counsel for Opposite parties submits that Opposite party no.2 Bibi Anjum Ara is in fact legally wedded wife 2 of the petitioner. In support of his contention he files a certified copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the mother of the petitioner wherein she has refer to her as her daughter-in-law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid document was not brought on record before the trial court. It is necessary to note that the petitioner has come against order granting ad interim maintenance to the Opposite party. The issue whether the Opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner can be decided exclusively at the stage of grant of ad interim maintenance, as it will require consideration of evidence. At this stage it is suffice that a woman claims and asserts that she is a legally wedded wife. In the instant case, the petitioner does not dispute that a case under section 498A of Penal Code has also been filed by Opposite party claiming herself to be his wife. It would be always open to the petitioner to bring appropriate case against Opposite party no.2, if he finally succeeds in proving that Opposite party no.2 is not his wife and vice versa. The second point urged on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Family Court did not try conciliation and as such violates the mandatory provisions of section 9 of the Family Court Act. This submission of petitioner is also devoid of merit. An order of ad interim maintenance is granted at the very beginning so that the woman who has been deserted by her husband may have the bare minimum to survive and to fight the litigation. Section 9 mandates that it would be duty of Family Court 3 KHAN to make conciliation, any time before deciding the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. It is generally neither mandatory nor practicable to make this effort at the ad interim stage. Thus at the stage of granting ad interim maintenance, it is not compulsory that aforesaid effort is to be made. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)