IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.823 of 2007 ISTAMA KHATOON & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7 14.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner no.1 is the estranged wife of O.P.No.2. She is aggrieved by order dated 20.4.2007 passed in Maintenance Case No.85 of 2005 (Istama Khatoon Vs. Md. Ekram). It appears the petitioner had earlier filed an application seeking maintenance. The said application was considered and disposed of by order dated 28.2.1998 passed in Misc. Case No.90/89 (Annexure-1) whereby it was ordered that O.P. being father of the applicant (Umda Khatoon, daughter of Md.Ekram) shall pay Rs.100/- per month to Umda Khatoon through her mother, Istama Khatoon, till her marriage. It is admitted position that the aforesaid order was carried in Cr.Revision No.182/98 before this Court by the husband (O.P. No.2) which was however rejected by an order dated 6.12.1999. Thereafter the wife on behalf of the daughter, namely, Umda Khatoon filed an application in the said matter under section 127 2 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.100/- to Rs.1000/- granted in favour of the daughter, namely, Umda Khatoon. Further prayer was made to pay sum of Rs.one lac for arranging marriage of the daughter. Learned Principal Judge on a consideration of materials on record refused to grant the aforesaid relief. It appears learned Principal Judge while considering the case of the parties found that there was no such direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- for arranging marriage of the daughter.Having found so the said claim of the daughter of O.P.No.2 for payment of Rs.one lac was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order no appropriate consideration has been made with regard to the claim of the daughter for enhancement of the amount of Rs.100/- which was fixed in the year 1998. It is further contended that going by the materials on record it cannot be said that the husband O.P.No.2 was not capable enough to pay certain enhanced amount. This matter has been lost sight of by the learned Family Court while disposing of the 3 application preferred by the applicant wife for enhancement on behalf of the daughter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that learned trial court has rightly refused the prayer made on behalf of the applicant wife, (on behalf of the daughter, Umda Khatoon) that O.P. no.2 would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for bnvarranging marriage of the daughter in view of the earlier findings recorded by the Court. It is next submitted that the husband is in precarious condition on the ground that his another son was suffering from a serious disease which ultimately claimed his life. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties I am of the view that earlier quantum of maintenance payable for the daughter of O.P.No.2 was fixed @ Rs.100/- per month in a proceeding in the year 1998. Even if lenient view is taken in the matter the said amount appears to be insufficient for the daughter based on capability of the husband of the petitioner no.1. Relevant consideration in this regard have not been 4 made by the learned court below while disposing of the application. Seen thus, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires reconsideration by the court below so far as the enhancement of the maintenance amount payable to the daughter of O.P.No.2 is concerned. Learned court below shall consider relevant materials on record and after adjudging the capability of the husband (O.P.No.2) appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding with regard to the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- for arranging marriage of the daughter of O.P.No.2 is upheld. Impugned order dated 20.4.2007 is hereby quashed in the aforesaid terms. Matter goes on remand to the court below for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Anilkr.sinha (Kishore K.Mandal,J.)