MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.590 OF 1998 Against the order dated 13.11.1998 passed by the Principal Judge,Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 291 of 1988; SMT.MRIDULA DEVI-----------------Appellant Versus THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,FAMILY -----Respondents COURT For the Appellant:-Mr.Dhurb Narayan,Senior Advocate & Mr. Dilip Kr. Jha, Advocate For Opp-Party No.1:Mr. Dhananjay Prasad & Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocates For Opp-Party No.2:Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh & Mr.Kaushal Kishore Sinha,Advocates P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan,JJ:-In a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Patna by order dated 11.6.1990, directed the husband-respondent No.2 Sita Ram Singh to pay to his wife respondent no.1 Bimla Devi, maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per months. Husband assailed the said order before the Revisional Court, but did not 2 succeed. Thereafter he filed application for quashing the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance and the dismissal of the revision application before this Court. It appears from the judgment itself,that by order dated 23.6.1992 passed in the aforesaid case this Court directed the husband to pay Rs.250/- per month as maintenance allowance till the disposal of the case. It is further apparent from the impugned judgment that the husband went on depositing money at the rate of Rs.250/- per month in compliance of the order. However, ultimately the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed. Thereafter the wife filed a petition for realization of Rs.40,000/- which was due to her as arrears of maintenance. She prayed for issuance of distress warrant. The learned Magistrate directed for issuance of distress warrant against the husband and in execution thereof, Flour Mill and Howler were seized. In order to protect its auction sale, appellant 3 Mridula Devi claiming to be the owner of the Flour Mill and Howler deposited Rs.36750/-. Appellant alleged that the police illegally seized the property belonging to her in execution of the distress warrant. Accordingly, she prayed for appropriate action against the police authority and release of the amount. Wife in response thereto stated that claim of Mridula Devi that she is the owner of the property is incorrect and in fact she is a concubine of her husband and in order to deprive her the maintenance she is claiming to be its owner. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna on consideration of the materials on record rejected her prayer by order dated 13.11.1998 passed in Maintenance Case No. 291(M) of 1988. Aggrieved by the same she has preferred this appeal. Mr. Dhurb Narayan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the Court below ought to have accepted the plea of the appellant that the property belonged 4 to her and consequently, directed its release and the amount deposited by her. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the documents filed by the appellant in the Court below. A Chircut dated 28.8.1997 was filed on behalf of the appellant showing that she had paid consideration money to the husband for the land upon which the machine room is existing. The Court below did not place any reliance on the said document taking into account that the electricity receipts have been filed of the year 1989 and, as such, the plea put fourth by the appellant that she paid the consideration money to Sita Ram Singh in 1997 is not fit to be believed. It observed that when the land was sold in the year 1997 how could the receipts of the electricity bill of the Mill standing over that could be of the earlier years. The Court below also took into consideration order dated 30.4.1998 passed in Insolvency Case No. 1 of 1997 which shows that it is the husband who had filed the Insolvency case for stay of the 5 distress warrant issued by the Family Court.The affidavits of three persons supporting her case have been disbelieved as same came into existence after the dispute has arisen. Not only this the amount for release of the property was not deposited by the appellant but the husband’s father. It is relevant here to state that according to the wife, appellant is the concubine of her husband and the specific direction was given to her by the Court below to state her status. Despite that she declined to do the same. Taking into account the aforesaid fact the Court below came to the conclusion that the property seized in execution of the distress warrant in fact belonged to the husband and this appellant in order to deprive the wife the amount of maintenance as claimed that to be her property, we are of the opinion that the Court below on consideration of the materials on record rightly held so and no case for interference is made out. 6 In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs.1100/- to be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J.) Patna High Court Dated the 17th of July,2008 A.Kumar/NAFR