IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.314 of 2006 Rajendra Kumar Sinha @ Rajendra Kumar Mandal @ Bablu Mandal s/o Sakendra Kumar Sinha @ Sikandar Mandal, r/o village – Rampur P.O.- Rampur, P.S. – Shiva Narayanpur (Kahalgaon), District – Bhagalpur ……… Apellant Vs. 1. Smt. Rekha Devi w/o Rajendra Kumar Sinha @ Rajendra Kumar Mandal d/o Chhatish Mandal, r/o village – Rampur, P.O. Rampur, P.S. – Shiva Narayanpur, (Kahalgaon), District- Bhagalpur 2. Bilash Mandal s/o late Dhiro Mandal, r/o village – Rampur, P.O. Rampur, P.S. Shiva Narayanpur, (Kahalgaon), District – Bhagalpur ………. Respondents with MA No.419 of 2006 Rajendra Kumar Sinha @ Rajendra Kumar Mandal @ Bablu Mandal …………… Appellant Versus Smt.Rekha Devi & Anr ……….. Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate 10 14/1/2010 These appeals being interconnected were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. We have heard Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Rajendra Kumar Sinha, the appellant – husband preferred an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act”) for 2 dissolution of marriage. Question of grant of pendente lite maintenance arose under section 24 of the Act before the learned Family Judge, Bhagalpur. Stand was taken by the husband that the wife is in enjoyment of 1 ½ Bigha of land inasmuch as 3 Bighas of land were purchased by the husband in the joint name. The learned Family Judge taking note of the said fact did not grant any amount towards maintenance. The proceeding for dissolution of marriage stood dismissed and eventually the order of dismissal was to be recalled on payment of Rs.500/- towards cost. The appellant- husband did not pay the same, as a consequence of which the order of dismissal attained finality. It is noticed from the order dated 22.7.2006 that the learned Family Judge while dismissing the suit on the ground of non-payment of costs had ensured payment of pendente lite maintenance by appointing a receiver in respect 1½ Bigha of land, which was purchased in the name of the wife. M.A. No.314 of 2006 has been filed against the dismissal of the application for dissolution of 3 marriage and M.A. No.314 of 2006 has been filed for setting aside the order appointing receiver. As far as the dismissal of the application for dissolution of marriage is concerned, we are inclined to direct that if the appellant – husband deposits a sum of Rs.2000/- before the learned Family Judge, Bhagalpur by end of April, 2010, the learned Family Judge shall disburse the same in favour of the wife on proper identification and thereafter proceed to deal with the application. As far as the other appeal is concerned, it is held that there was no warrant for appointing a receiver and accordingly the order relating to appointment of receiver is set aside. However, it is directed that the wife-respondent shall cultivate 1 ½ Bigha of land that was purchased in her name and the appellant-husband shall not create any disturbance in her enjoyment of the said property. In case of any kind of disturbance, liberty is granted to the wife to bring it to the notice of the Family Court. The said arrangement is subject to the final decision of the application preferred under 4 section 13 of the Act. If the amount of Rs.2000/- as directed hereinabove is deposited, the learned Family Judge shall proceed with the suit and decide the same within a span of three months therefrom. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount the dismissal order would stand and the wife shall reap the benefits of 1 ½ Bigha of land. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)