Patna High CourtCR. REV./960/2014disposed

Ajay Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-02-20Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.960 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Ajay Singh Son of Mahendra Singh resident of village- Ratoi, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Patan Devi Daughter of Awadh Singh resident of village- Goithadih, P.S. and District- Nawada

3. Dharmpal

4. Shishupal, both sons of Ajay Singh, under the guardianship of Patan Devi, daughter of Awadh Singh, resident of village-Goithadih, P.S. and District-Nawada.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2017 By impugned order dated 03.05.2013, the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada in Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Case No. 23 of 2004 has allowed monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to opposite party No. 2 and her two children each (total Rs. 6,000/-), in exercise of power under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner is husband of opposite party No. 2. It is his plea that he does not have any difficulty in making payment of maintenance allowance to opposite party No. 2. However, so far

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.960 of 2014 (5) dt.20-02-2017 2/3 as two sons of the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 are concerned, it is his contention that they are living with the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of making any payment for their maintenance. He has submitted that for some compelling reasons, the petitioner could not appear before the court below in maintenance proceeding because of which ex-parte order has been passed, which is under challenge in the present case.

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 also. He submits that he does not have any specific instruction as to whether the two children are living with the petitioner or opposite party No. 2. He also submits that if the petitioner can establish that the children are living with him, the opposite party No. 2 can not claim maintenance in their respect.

Since the order, which has been passed by the court below did not have the occasion to take into account the stand of the petitioner that the children are living with him, the order passed cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. However, in my view, if any application is filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the parties for alteration of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.960 of 2014 (5) dt.20-02-2017 3/3 allowances in the changed circumstance, the same shall be disposed of taking into account all the facts and circumstances including the plea that children are living with the petitioner. This application stands disposed of with the observation as above.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T