IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.146 of 2009 NIVA SINHA Versus SUNIL KUMAR ----------- 03/ 30.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed for modification of order dated 23.12.2008 passed in C. R. No. 1535 of 2005 by which time granted earlier in the aforesaid case vide order dated 16.10.2008, was extended. 3. The matter arises out of Maintenance Case No. 94M of 2004 which was filed by Niva Sinha for maintenance against her husband Sunil Kumar and in that case she filed a petition for interim maintenance but the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna rejected the said petition vide order dated 05.05.2005. 4. Against the said order of the learned court below, Niva Sinha filed C.R. No.1535 of 2005 and after hearing both the parties the said C.R. was disposed of with a direction to the learned court below to proceed with the hearing of the case expeditiously without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties and decide the case positively by 20th June, 2008 and intimate this court about the same. 5. After one month of the expiry of the said date the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna sent a letter dated 21.07.2008 for extension of time granted by this court on 18.03.2008 for disposing of the maintenance case and hence the time was extended till 30.09.2008 directing that by that time the said 2 order must be positively complied. 6. Even thereafter the maintenance case was not disposed of by the learned court below and again on 26.09.2008 the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna sought extension of time by six months more. Considering the same vide order dated 16.10.2008 this court took very serious view of the matter and directed the learned court below to decide the maintenance case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order and inform this court about the same, failing which necessary orders would be passed. 7. It transpires that on 21.12.2008 M.J.C. No.3632 of 2008 was filed by Sunil Kumar for modification of order dated 16.10.2008 and granting further extension. However, considering the circumstances of the case this court vide order dated 23.12.2008 directed that the defendant must conclude his evidence by 13.02.2009 whereafter the learned court below will hear day to day arguments on behalf of the parties without giving any adjournment to them so that maintenance case is decided by the end of February, 2009 and with the said modification in order dated 16.10.2008 M.J.C. No.3632 of 2008 was disposed of. 8. Again the instant M.J.C. No. 146 of 2009 has been filed by Sunil Kumar on 11.01.2009 for modification of order dated 23.12.2008 and for directing the learned court below to issue summons against the witnesses, list of whom had been given by Sunil Kumar in the learned court below on 24.12.2008. 3 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below vide order dated 05.01.2009 rejected the petition filed by Sunil Kumar for recall of order dated 18.08.2008 passed by the learned court below as the said order had automatically become infructuous in view of the specific order of this court dated 23.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that by the said order dated 05.01.2009 the learned court below also refused to issue summons to the witnesses of Sunil Kumar who had filed the list of witnesses on 24.12.2008 as the issuance of summon would delay the disposal of the case and result in violation of the directions of the High Court. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the marriage of the parties took place when Sunil Kumar was Sub-Registrar at Sitamarhi and thereafter he was selected in the I.P.S. and was posted in Jammu & Kashmir and hence to prove the marriage or otherwise there was no requirement of any witness of Jammu & Kashmir or Himachal Pradesh, whereas most of the witnesses in the list produced by Sunil Kumar belonged to those places and hence it was merely a dilatory ploy of Sunil Kumar. He also submits that this court after considering the entire matter had granted final extension on 23.12.2008 and the filing of this M.J.C. is merely with a view to anyhow circumvent the said order and get the maintenance case delayed. 11. It is quite strange that the maintenance case is going on since 2004 and Sunil Kumar did not file any such list of evidence 4 when the hearing of the case started nor he filed any list of witnesses when deposition of witnesses started and after deposition of his 13 witnesses he had filed the petition dated 24.12.2008 for issuance of Dasti summons against the witnesses of such far flung areas. Furthermore, order dated 05.01.2009 passed by the learned court below has not been challenged by Sunil Kumar nor this forum of M.J.C. is meant for challenging such orders. 12. In any view of the matter, this court feels that sufficient opportunities have already been given to Sunil Kumar and any further indulgence in favour of Sunil Kumar will be an abuse of the process of the court and would undermine the sanctity and importance of specific orders and directions of this court, specially when the plea of extension has been found to be absolutely frivolous. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)