IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.784 of 2007 AMARNATH GUPTA @ MUNNA GUPTA Versus PRIYANKA DEVI ----------- 3 22/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any merit in this application for the simple reason that the court below after adducing evidence and accepting document specially of the victim lady has come to a clear finding that the petitioner had not only neglected the opposite party, wife but despite sufficient means had not paid the amount of maintenance. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the marriage of the opposite party with the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2000 when the petitioner was student. Now the petitioner has sufficient income from his business and if the court below had directed for payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of maintenance, the same cannot be said to be excessive or illegal. Counsel for the petitioner would next contend that there has been attempt on the part of the petitioner to settle the issue and in fact attempt for amicable settlements were also made by the Court. In the opinion of this Court, even if today opposite party, wife on her on volition, as claimed by the petitioner, is taken back, it will be always open to the petitioner to bring this changed situation before the court below and the court below in exercise of power under section 127 of the Cr. P.C. would be entitled to recall the order of maintenance from the date both of them 2 start living together in a peaceful manner. That being a matter of future, this Court does not find any error in the present order only on the ground that in future there may be chance of settlement between the parties. This application is therefore wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The court below is directed to ensure that the arrears and current amount of maintenance must be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party in accordance with the order of the court below. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar