IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1522 of 2006 RAJENDRA BHAGAT Versus REKHA DEVI ----------- 04/ 12.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision is being heard at this stage at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision has been filed against order dated 17.07.2006, by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari, allowed Maintenance Case No. 117/ 2005(01/2003) and directed the petitioner, who was opposite party in the court below, to pay Rs.2,000.00 per month to his wife, namely opposite party, who was applicant in the court below, for her maintenance with effect from the date of presentation of the maintenance petition. After considering the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the relationship of husband and wife is not denied between the parties and it is also not denied that opposite party is living with her parents since long. The case of the opposite party is that after her marriage the petitioner and other members of his family demanded dowry, but when it could not be fulfilled they started committing atrocities on opposite party and, thereafter, they hatched up a conspiracy to kill her, but due to intervention of the villagers her life could be saved. It was also claimed that on the day of chhath, opposite party went to her parents house along with her father, but the entire ornaments, clothes, cash etc. were withheld by the petitioner and his family - 2 - members and since then she has not been allowed to live with her husband although she has no source of income and her father is also a poor man. It is further claimed by opposite party that the petitioner has got sufficient source of income from several bighas of land, a kirana shop and an orchard and is earning Rs.10,000.00 to Rs.12,000.00 monthly and hence opposite party is entitled to get maintenance from her husband. The said claim of the opposite party is supported by the evidence adduced by her. The claim of the petitioner is that although the marriage between the parties was admitted but the entire story was concocted as she had filed a criminal case for offence punishable under section 498A of the Penal Code, in which the petitioner had to remain in custody for about seven months, but thereafter he has been released. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed a case for dissolution of marriage, which is pending and in which opposite party has appeared. He also avers that neither the petitioner nor his family members have ever tortured opposite party or demanded any dowry nor the petitioner has any independent source of income and it has been admitted by opposite party that the petitioner has been separated by his father. Hence he submits that it is quite apparent that the petitioner having no source of income, the impugned order of the learned court below for payment of Rs.2,000.00 per month to opposite party is arbitrary, perverse and illegal. From the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the - 3 - petitioner has not been able to show that opposite party has any source of income, on the other hand, the opposite party has produced some evidence with respect to source of income of the petitioner. The learned court below has considered the matter in detail and has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient source of income to pay the said amount of maintenance to opposite party. Furthermore, the divorce case filed by the petitioner or criminal case filed by opposite party cannot legally hinder or obstruct the process of the maintenance case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )