IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.222 of 2007 SHAMBHU MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : - MR.IQBAL ASIF NIAZI For the opposite party:- MR.GOVIND KUMAR JHA ----------------- 4 2.9.2008 This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 25.11.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in M. R. Case No.251/95 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- per month respectively. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no.2 voluntarily left the house of the petitioner. Reconciliation was also made but she refused to live with the petitioner. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to get maintenance. Second submission is that the petitioner has already paid ad interim maintenance in divorce case being Matrimonial Case No 4/96 filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act from 19.2.1998 till the dismissal of the case on 9.10.2004. It is further submitted that the petitioner is simply a betel shop owner and has monthly income of Rs.400/- per month. He is unable to pay Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party submitted that the petitioner has already contracted second marriage with another lady. He used to torture the opposite party no.2 as a - 2 - result of which the opposite party no.2 refused to live with the petitioner. It is further submitted that this finding has been recorded in paragraph 38 of the judgment .Further submission is that the petitioner is not only owner of betel shop but also he is mechanic of TV and other electrical equipments. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no substance in this application. The court below has rightly awarded maintenances to opposite party nos.2 and 3, the minor girl of opposite party no.2. However, it appears from the impugned order that the court below has directed to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 20.9.1995. The total arrears come to Rs.2,07,000/- .It is not possible for a betel shop owner to pay such a huge amount. It further appears that the petitioner has already paid ad interim maintenance @ Rs.700/-per month in the divorce case from 19.2.1998 till the dismissal of the case on 9.10.2004. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance amount as awarded to opposite party nos.2 and 3 with effect from the date of dismissal of divorce case i.e. 9.10.2004 instead of date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. With the aforesaid modification this revision application stands dismissed. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)