IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.856 of 2007 PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH @ PRAVIN KUMAR Versus ARUNA KUMARI SINGH @ NANHI & ORS ----------- C.R. No.1671 of 2007 PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH @ PRAVIN KUMAR Versus ARUNA KUMARI SINGH @ NANHI & ORS ----------- 2. 25.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. On merits, for the reasons mentioned in I.A. no. 4507/2007 the delay in filing Civil Revision application, C.R. no. 1671/2007 is hereby condoned in the opinion of this Court, both civil revision applications are wholly misconceived. The court below by the impugned order dated 13.2.2007, which is subject matter of C.R.No. 1671/2007, has rejected the application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such order of the court below is infested with material irregularity, inasmuch as subsequent evidence which came to the notice of the petitioner by a newspaper publication were sought to be made by additional evidence. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner, the defendant to the maintenance case, had no such liberty. He had to stand by the case that he had pleaded in his written statement and if his written statement did not contain the details of the police case the petitioner was also required to amend his written statement and thereafter such prayer for leading additional evidence could have been made in the event such amendment in his written statement was 2 allowed. Counsel for the petitioner next submits that the final order passed on 28th February, 2007 which is subject matter of also suffers from jurisdictional error, inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month, for each of for wife and two daughters, the three opposite parties has been allowed despite the wife, opposite party no. 1 leading an adulterous life. In the opinion of this Court merely because the husband, the petitioner, had alleged adultery but had not led any evidence to prove it, that by itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order granting Rs. 1000/- by way of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. to the wife or to the two daughters. If however there is any such proof in possession of the petitioner that the wife opposite party is still being in adultery it will be always open for the petitioner to approach the court below, the family court, for recall of the order strictly in terms of Section 127 of Cr.P.C., but then as on the date this Court would not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner as with regard to either admissibility or quantum of the amount of maintenance as held to be payable by the husband petitioner to his wife and two daughters in the impugned order. This being the position, both the civil revision applications are misconceived and are hereby dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears and current amount of maintenance within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing 3 which the court below must take appropriate coercive steps against the petitioner for realization of the aforesaid amount. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/