IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25060 of 2006 KUNWAR RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Yogesgh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate and Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. ---------- O R D E R The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Case No.37(M) of 2002 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- per mensum to be paid to the wife-opposite party no.2 and further a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost notwithstanding the fact that the wife was not unable to maintain herself and that when offered to maintain her on the condition to live with him she had refused to do so. Shanti Devi, the wife of the petitioner herein, who has been impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, had filed the aforesaid Misc. Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been living separately since the last 15 years when his wife, sons and daughters having deserted him and that the wife was living in jointness with sons and was in possession of all the movable and immovable property of the petitioner and enjoying the rent of two houses and 12 shops of the market named as Alku Ram Market and the income coming from the petrol pump. It has also been submitted - 2 - that O.P. No.2 herself had stated in court that she was getting Rs.6000/- per month from the rent from Alku Ram Market whereas in fact it was actually Rs.12000/- that she was getting and this was more than sufficient to cater to her needs/requirements for her maintenance. On the contrary, it was submitted that the petitioner was aged 80 years suffering from several diseases had suffered heart attack in the year 1995 and since then was under going regular treatment. It was also submitted that the only income the petitioner had was Rs.5000/- that he received from the Government as pension and there is no other source of income. In the circumstances, it was contended that in this background it was a matter of surprise that O.P. No.2 had filed this case for maintenance. It was also submitted that earlier in the year 2000 the O.P. No.2 had brought Miscellaneous Case No.684(M) of 2000 whereby she had tried her best to declare the petitioner as a mad person. It appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, as stated above, by his order dated 10.1.2003 had directed for payment of Rs.5000/- per mensum to O.P. No.2 towards maintenance and another lump sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. This matter was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No.106 of 2003 and this Court vide order dated 27.4.2006 without going into the merits dismissed the revision simply on the ground of maintainability and directed to expedite the trial under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Not satisfied therewith the petitioner within two months has - 3 - filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 23.6.2006 questioning the propriety of the order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Since this Court had already dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and directed for expeditious trial, I am of the opinion that this quashing application is not maintainable on the same set of facts and was only a modus operandi to delay the final decision in the trial. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 24th of June, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.