IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1296 of 2007 BIRENDRA PASWAN SON OF LATE BHAJJU PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BALAFIGHA CHHOTIA, P.O.- TAKIYA KARPI, P.S.- KHIDAR SARAI, DISTRICT- GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KANTI DEVI, WIFE OF BIRENDRA PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BALAFIGHA CHHOTIA, P.O.- TAKIYA KARPI, P.S.- KHIDAR SARAI, DISTRICT- GAYA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF DHARAUT, P.S.- MAKHDUM PUR, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. For the petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Maintenance Case no. 09/2003/112/2006 (Kanti Devi versus Birendra Paswan) By the said order, learned Principal Judge directed for payment of maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of institution of the case till June 2006 and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,200/- per month to the wife as maintenance w.e.f. July, 2006. The amount thereby lying in arrear was also directed to be paid in one lump sum or in 12 equal installment starting from the month September, 2007. Learned counsel submits that no adequate reason has been assigned for granting maintenance @ 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application. The order, therefore, is bad in law. . Petitioner has not been able to state before this Court that any amount was paid to the wife as maintenance. He relies on judgment reported in 2000 (2) P.L.J.R. 241 ( Bijay Kapri 2 versus Smt. Kanishta Devi). This Court finds from the impugned order that applicant-wife(O.P. no. 2) filed the aforesaid application in which the husband-petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. The fact that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner-husband is not in dispute. Wife came out with a positive case that after solemnizing second marriage by his husband with another lady in the year 1996, she has been forced to leave the house and she is living separately and struggling to maintain herself and her minor son. It is thus her case that she is unable to maintain herself. In order to prove her case, 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant-wife including herself. From their evidence, it appears that her husband is employed in Income-Tax Department and his current salary then was Rs. 10,000-12,000/- per month. Paragraph 5 of the order needs particular attention which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ 5. From perusal of the case record, it appears to me that after recording of the statement of these witnesses the O.P. had filed a petition praying therein to recall them for cross examination and the court allowed the petition at a cost of Rs. 500 per witness but the O.P. did not deposit the cost and these witnesses, accordingly were not cross-examined nor the O.P. taken part in arguing the case. “ It is admitted position that O.Ps(husband) after filing the rejoinder did not take interest in the case. No witness was examined on his behalf to contradict the claim(s) of the wife. It further appears from the order that a compromise was entered into between the parties in connection with a criminal case lodge by the applicant 3 wife against his husband under Sections 494 and 498A. On a consideration of the materials available on record, the learned Principal Judge found that the applicant-wife was living separately. She was unable to maintain herself and her son. The husband was employed and was getting handsome salary. There was a compromise by and between the parties in the criminal case pending against the husband at the instance of the wife. In the background of these facts emanating from the records, it has been directed that the wife shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application and a sum of Rs. 2200/- w.e.f. July, 2006. This Court finds no infirmity in the order meriting interference. There is no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )