IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.361 of 2008 SOBRA KHATOON, wife of Rahim Mian …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAHIM MIAN …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 04. 30.09.2010 Petitioner is the applicant-wife. She is aggrieved by order dated 04.03.2008, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Maintenance Case No.66 of 2006, whereby her application filed under section 125 Cr. P.C. has been considered and rejected. Petitioner had asserted that he is not being maintained by her husband. She also made a grievance that two minor daughters are living with her for whom also she requires maintenance. This Court by order dated 01.09.2010 passed the following order: “Both sides present. Counsel for opposite party no.2 prays for some time to file reply to this application. It appears that he had also not filed any rejoinder in the court below. He is permitted to file counter affidavit in the present case, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.2000/- in favour of the applicant (Sobra Khatoon) within three weeks from today. O.P.No.2 shall pay the said amount either in the shape of bank draft and/or by depositing the same in the court below and shall make appropriate statements in the counter affidavit. List this case high on board after four weeks” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of indulgence so granted by this Court, neither counter affidavit has been filed nor the amount has been paid to her and/or deposited. Learned counsel referring to the deposition of the applicant Sobra Khatoon (P.W.1) submits that trial court took into 2 consideration what was stated in paragraph 5 but failed to notice her depositions culled out in subsequent paras wherein it has been clearly deposed by her that two kathas of arable land which was given to her for maintenance in terms of a Panchayati, was subsequently sold to some other persons by the husband (o.p.no.2). It is stated that the order passed by learned court below is the result of complete non-consideration of the materials on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of o.p.no.2 submits that his client is not in touch with him and, as such, he is unable to state before this court as to under what circumstances the order dated 01.09.2010 was not complied with by the husband (o.p.no.2). Since there is no counter affidavit controverting the statements made in the application, this Court would consider the statements made in the application. It is stated in the application that the impugned order is mechanical, whimsical and based upon non-consideration of materials available on record. This Court is satisfied that a case for interference has been made out. Consequently, order impugned dated 04.03.2008 is quashed and set aside. The matter goes on remand to the court below for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )