IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.669 of 2008 RAMCHANDRA THAKUR LOHAR @ RAM CHANDRA THAKUR Versus Smt. SANYOGITA DEVI ----------- 4 12.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 23.9.2008 and 4.12.2008. Pursuant thereto though the wife-opposite party had appeared in person but Husband-petitioner has remained absent by furnishing explanation through his counsel that the petitioner has gone out of the State in connection with his employment and as such he is not in a position to appear today. The purpose of issuing notice to both the parties for their personal appearance was to ascertain their willingness as to whether they are prepared to live together, in as much as, Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, counsel for the petitioner on the last occasion had contended that the petitioner has no difficulty in staying together with his wife and as a matter of fact it is the wife-opposite party who does not want to reside with the petitioner. In the light of the aforementioned stand of the petitioner this Court in presence of counsel for the parties had made a query from the wife-opposite party as to whether she was prepared to live with her husband, i.e, the petitioner. The wife-opposite party however is absolutely reluctant to live with the petitioner and her reasons are also not unjustified. She - 2 - says that her husband in fact has already entered into second marriage and in presence of that lady in the life of the petitioner it would be impossible for the wife-opposite party (first wife) to stay together. This Court, therefore, would not like to make any further effort on the possibility of an amicable settlement nor would it hold the reasons for reservation/refusal of the wife-opposite party to live with the petitioner to be unreasonable. The impugned order also is only confined to payment of ad- interim maintenance in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when the wife-opposite party has a valid ground for not residing together with her husband, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order which as stated above is only an ad-interim arrangement till disposal of the maintenance case. The amount of Rs.2400/- per month by way of ad-interim maintenance to the wife-opposite party is also not found to be either excessive or illegal and therefore this Court would find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. At the same time the ad-interim order of maintenance cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period and as such when both the parties are prepared to lead their evidence and conclude hearing in the maintenance case, this Court would direct the Family Court to take up the maintenance case filed by the wife-opposite party for its hearing so that the main maintenance case itself is decided within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. - 3 - Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, has assured this Court that arrear of the amount in terms of order of the Family Court towards ad-interim maintenance has already been paid and that current amount will be kept on being paid on month to month basis. This Court, therefore, would direct the court below to ascertain from the wife opposite party as to whether entire arrears of ad-interim maintenance as directed in the impugned order has already been paid and in the event the entire arrears of such amount has already been paid and the petitioner is also paying the current amount from month to month to the wife-opposite party, it would call upon the wife- opposite party to adduce her evidence and ensure that the maintenance case is disposed of within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the court below needs no interference by this Court and therefore this Civil Revision Application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions. Bibhash/Abhay (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)