IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.732 of 2007 RENU DEVI Versus SANJEEV KUMAR @ SANJEEV KR.SIN ----------- 3. 15.9.2008. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 19th March,2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur in Maintenance Case No.6 of 2004 thereby the court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner against the opposite party. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad and illegal both in law as well as on facts. The admitted fact is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party. Several litigations were going on between the parties as a result of which the petitioner began to live separately. However, the court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that the opposite party is still willing to keep this petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the real fact is that the petitioner voluntarily left the house of this opposite party and began to live separately. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it is quite apparent that there is justification for the petitioner not to live along with the opposite party. Earlier a case under section 498A of the I.P.C. was filed against the opposite party for torture which was ultimately compromised. Again another F.I.R. was lodged against the opposite party for torture etc. - 2 - N.H./ Under the facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is not obliged to live with the opposite party. On perusal of the impugned order, it is quite clear that the court below has not properly appreciated the fact circumstances and law and wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It appears from the impugned order that during pendency of the proceeding, the opposite party was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month, which was also not yet paid by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The petition filed by the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the opposite party Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the husband of the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of this order. The current and future maintenance must be paid by the opposite party to the petitioner by 15th of each following month, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the same through process of law as provided under section 125 Cr.P.C. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )