IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37692 of 2009 HARI CHANDRA JADAV @ HARISH CHANDRA YADAV, son of Ram Roop Yadav, resident of Village- Haidarpur, Police Station-Pandaul, District-Madhubani. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sati Devi Wife of Harish Chandra Yadav, Daughter of Basu Deo Yadav, resident of Village-Haidrpur P.S. Pandaul, District-Madhubani. At present- Bhagtipur, p.S. Pandaul, District-Madhubani. ----------- 3 4/3/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The opposite party no.2, despite service of notice and filing of Vakalatnama through counsel, has not been represented. This Court while issuing notice by order dated 11.12.2009 had observed as follows:- “Hari Chandra Jadav @ Harish Chandra Yadav, the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and there are specific allegations against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had gone to bring his wife but she is not agreeable to come.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is still ready to keep his wife opposite party no. 2 with due respect and dignity and infact has also not filed any case for divorce nor has been married to any other lady. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is also prepared to meet the reasonable expenses of the wife and though initially offered a sum of Rs. 1500 p.m. he has agreed for a payment of Rs. 2500/- per month by the petitioner. Thus, in a situation like this where opposite party no.2 has also failed to respond to the notice issued by this Court, the 2 petitioner-husband in view of his fair approach towards his wife cannot be denied the privilege of anticipatory bail. At the same time this Court would find that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 is at least 22 years old and therefore if the petitioner on account of refusal on the part of his wife-opposite party no.2 to live together has not filed any case for divorce, he would be liable to maintain her wife. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- by way of her maintenance from the date of filing of the complaint petition. Such amount shall be paid by the petitioner in installments, the arrears from the month of June, 2008 to February, 2010 in four equal three monthly installments. From the month of March, 2010 the petitioner will deposit such amount in the Court on every 10th of the next successive months and till the petitioner keeps on depositing such amount and also clears the amount of arrears the bail being directed by this order shall continue to remain operative. That being so, if the petitioner, namely, Hari Chandra Jadav @ Harish Chandra Yadav surrenders and deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- through a Bank draft payable in the name of the complainant, he would be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in Complaint Case no.792 of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down in section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after 3 obtaining an undertaking for complying the directions for payment of rest of the amount as indicated above. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)