IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.938 of 2007 AMRIT KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA, SON OF ARUN KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF PANCHAMBA P.S. MUFFASIL, BEGUSARAI …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NOOTAN KUMAR, WIFE OF AMRIT KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA, DAUGHTER OF SRI SHIVDANI SINGH RESIDENT OF RAMDIRI NAKTI TOLA P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT. BEGUASARAI …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate For o.p.no.2 :Mr. Anil Kumar Singh & :Mr. Surinder Kumar For the State :Mrs. Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 08. 21.06.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the husband. He is aggrieved by order dated 1st May, 2007, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Maintenance Case No. 8M/2005, whereby on a consideration of materials brought on record by the parties, learned court below directed for payment of a sum of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance amount to the applicant (o.p.no.2) with effect from the date of institution of the case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on an application preferred by o.p.no.2, a decree of divorce has already been pronounced which has been accepted by both the parties as no appeal thereagainst has been filed by the parties. Learned counsel further submits that no adequate reason has been assigned by learned trial court in allowing maintenance with effect from the date of institution of the case. Learned counsel also made submission on the capability of the petitioner to pay 2 the maintenance amount as fixed under the impugned order. A show cause/counter affidavit on behalf of o.p.no.2 has been filed. It is the stand of o.p.no.2 that learned court below has considered in right perspective the materials/evidence on record including the capability of the petitioner to pay the said amount. Learned counsel submits with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has adequate earning(s) to pay the said amount. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. It is the admitted position at Bar that the wife (o.p.no.2) has already secured divorce from the petitioner. It is also admitted at Bar that the applicant (o.p.no.2) would be entitled to receive maintenance even after divorce till she re- marries. Claim and counter claim with regard to capability of the petitioner has been raised before this Court. Normally and generally maintenance is granted with effect from the date of order. However, the court can grant the maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the application/proceeding but after recording reason(s) therefor. Having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court is satisfied that the following order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would serve the interest of justice. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the applicant (wife) with effect from 1st of May, 2007. So 3 far as the arrears payable to the applicant is concerned, this Court directs that if the petitioner pays to the o.p.no.2 50% of the entire arrears amount to be computed at the rate of 1500/- per month within a period of five months from today and files an affidavit in the court, then the same would satisfy the entire claims of arrears payable by the petitioner for the period 01.11.2005 to 30.04.2007. In the event of non- payment of entire arrears as per the present order within the aforesaid time, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the entire amount falling due for the said period at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )