IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8328 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA- NADRAGANJ, RAM SAGAR ROAD, P.S. CIVIL LINES, TOWN AND DISTT.- GAYA, AT PRESENT MOHALLA- DELHA, P.S. DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 2. MANISHA KUMARI @ ANITA KUMARI, W/O SANJAY KUMAR AND D/O LATE RAM BAHADUR PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA- TOWER CHOWK SARAI ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- GAYA……………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s Dinu Kumar, D.Sahay and S.K. Prabhakar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. S. Mishra, A.C. to G.P-10 ----------- 03/ 03.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 03.04.2010 by which Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya in Matrimonial Title Suit No.89 of 2005 directed the plaintiff-petitioner for payment of arrears of maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1,500.00 per month as per order dated 13.07.2006 failing which Distress Warrant shall be issued against the petitioner for recovery of arrears. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for dissolution of his marriage with the sole defendant, namely, respondent no.2. In the said suit the defendant appeared and contested, whereafter pleadings were complete. 4. It further transpires that an application was filed by defendant-respondent no.2 under the provision of section 24 of - 2 - the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for payment of maintenance and cost of litigation, which was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya vide its order dated 13.07.2006 directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500.00 per month since the date of filing of the said application i.e. 27.06.2002 as maintenance and also to pay Rs.5,000.00 to her as litigation cost. The said order was affirmed by this court. 5. Subsequently on 17.03.2010 the plaintiff filed an application for modification of order dated 13.07.2006 on the ground of loss of service as he retired from military service as carpenter. The said application was dismissed as not pressed on 03.04.2010 and the said order has also attained finality. Thus it is quite apparent that till date maintenance for about hundred months have fallen due out of which according to the petitioner only Rs.15, 000.00 has been deposited by the petitioner and even the cost of litigation allowed vide order dated 13.07.2006 has not been paid. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the court below as steps have to be taken for recovery of the amount in compliance of the order of a court of law which had been affirmed by this court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)