IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1492 of 2006 HARIHAR DAS @ PAPPU DAS Versus SUMITRA DEVI ----------- 3 11.08.2008 Heard, Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava counsel for the opposite party. In the opinion of this Court, while there is no error in the first part of the impugned order fixing the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month for the wife, opposite party and/or Rs. 1000/- for the minor child, this Court would fail to understand the logic of directing the petitioner to pay arrears from 1993, the date of filing of the application at the first instance by the opposite party-wife. It is so because the opposite party has admitted that on intervention of the Court, the relations had improved and she has gone to the house of the petitioner whereupon they had also stayed together and they had also an issue. The minor child whose maintenance has been given from the year, 2002, the date of birth. In such a situation, the Court below ought to have held - 2 - that the liability of payment of arrears at best could have been imposed for both the mother and child from the same date and therefore, the opposite party could have been made entitled for payment of maintenance only from 2002. Accordingly, this court would modify the impugned order by holding that the petitioner would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party towards her maintenance from the month of January, 2002 and Rs. 1000/- for the minor child from the same date i.e. January, 2002. The second aspect which was vehemently pressed by the learned counsel is with regard to the quantum of Rs. 2000/- per month on the ground that the income of the petitioner is very low. Unfortunately, the pleading would suggest that the wife-opposite party had specifically asserted that the petitioner has two shops one of readymade garments and the other of Kirana and in addition to it, he has got two buildings and also agricultural property of one and half Bigahas of land. This part of the statement of wife of the - 3 - petitioner, when dealt in the written statement was not categorically denied and all that was suggested was that the petitioner has one shop from which the income is rather insufficient. There is nothing to show that the petitioner even came to controvert the specific statement of the wife-opposite party, as with regard to readymade garments shop or that having two residential houses. In that view of the matter, this Court will come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not categorically stated the facts with regard to income and accordingly, the Court below having taken an over all picture and coming to a conclusion that the petitioner had a reasonable means of income and had fixed a sum of Rs. 2000/- for the wife and Rs. 1000/- for the minor child. Such approach of the Court below cannot be said to be illegal and the quantum of amount fixed by the impugned order is also not excessive. This Court therefore does not find any merit even in the second part of the submission and the same is also rejected. At this stage, counsel for the - 4 - petitioner submits that at least when this Court has given the direction to pay the arrears of current amount, the petitioner should be an accommodation to pay the payment of arrears in four installments. Considering the fact that the arrears will accumulate to a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- (two lacs and sixteen thousand only) approximately ( Rs. 36,000/- per year from 2002 onwards), this Court would direct the petitioner to deposit this amount within a period of one year in four equal installments, apart from depositing the current amount. With the aforementioned observation and direction this Civil Revision application is disposed of. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)