IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15447 of 2004 Santosh Kumar, son of late Ram Das Sudhakar, resident of Village Tehta, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. Bank of India, through Chief Manager (H.R.), Patna Zone, Chanakaya Palace, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. 2. General Manager (Human Resources), Bank of India, Patna Zone, Chanakaya Palace, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 3. Branch Manager, Bank of India, Makhdumpur Branch, District Jehanabad. 4. Smt. Madhuri Devi, Wife of Ram Das Sudhakar, Resident of Village Tehta, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad. --------- Respondents ----------- 9 15.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's grievance in this writ application is against the appointment of the respondent no.4 on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, he claims that he being the son of the first wife of the deceased employee ought to have been given such employment in preference to the second wife, respondent no.4. Mr. Shivajee Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has explained that as per the policy of the Bank, it is the wife, who has to be given the first preference and since the Respondent no. 4 was admittedly the surviving wife on the date of death of the deceased employee, she has been 2 employed in the Bank. Counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the aforementioned settled principle of law that in presence of the wife of the deceased employee, the son will have only a second right of being considered for appointment, would submit that even then the wife, in this case respondent no.4, would be liable to maintain all the dependants of the family members of the deceased employee including a stepson but, the respondent no.4, despite being employed since September, 2004, has neither been paying any amount nor taking any steps for maintaining the petitioner. This case was heard earlier on 28.3.2011 and the counsel for the Respondent no. 4 had taken a stand that she had been regularly sending the petitioner an amount of Rs. 500/- by money order but that was being refused by the petitioner. This court had accordingly directed the counsel for the petitioner and Respondent no. 4 to take instruction as to whether the respondent no.4 would be herself willing to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner from her monthly 3 salary by way of. Today, Mr. Jawahardhari Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 would submit that the take-home salary of the respondent no.4, after statutory deduction and installments of loan taken in the life time of the husband of the respondent no.4, comes to Rs. 11,700/- in which she has to maintain herself, her three children and, therefore, she would it difficult to pay sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the Respondent no. 4. Normally in a case like this where the stepson and the stepmother on account of strained relationship cannot stay under the same roof and the stepson continues to be the liability of the deceased employee, there has to be some sort of adjustment/apportionment, which may allow the family to pull in a descent, peaceful and comfortable manner. Here in this case, even if two shares of the salary is left for the employee respondent no.4 and three shares for her dependent children, still the petitioner being the step son will be entitled for one share, which would mean a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month has 4 to be paid by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner. This principle has been usually followed by the Apex Court and this Court in similar cases of maintenance arising out of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Faced with this situation that this Court could consider to direct for payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month for maintenance of the petitioner by respondent no.4, Mr. Singh would submit that the respondent no.4 on her own would be prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month for maintaining the petitioner till he would not get employment and/or has develop his own means of income for fully supporting himself. Counsel for the petitioner has also accepted this offer of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and, therefore, with the consent of the parties, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent Bank to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the monthly salary of the respondent no.4 and credit the said amount in a separate bank account of the petitioner to be opened in the 5 Bank, if not already existing. It is, however, made clear that such payment of Rs. 1,000/- will begin from the month of April, 2011 and the arrears would be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month as was sought to be offered by her also asserted in paragraph no.18 of the counter affidavit filed by her in this case, reading as follows:- “18. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no.23 of the writ application it is stated that the allegations made against the deponent is incorrect. In fact in terms of the commitment made to the bank, the deponent is sending money regularly to the petitioner for his maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each month by money order, which is not being accepted by her. The deponent crave “Leaves’ to produce money order receipts at the time of hearing of this case.” The arrear of Rs. 500/- per month from September, 2004 to March, 2011 must be paid by way of four equal monthly installments in a period of four months from today whereas Rs. 1,000/- per month shall be paid in the manner indicated above from the month of 6 April, 2011. Let it be made clear that the apprehension of Mr. Singh that the petitioner would claim the entire ancestoral property or the self-earned property of his father, the husband of the respondent no.4, is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the Respondent no. 4 and children from the second marriage of the deceased have their well defined rights in such property of the deceased employee as per the settled provisions of Hindu Succession Act. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)