Jaipal Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21875 of 2013 =========================================================== Jaipal Ram S/O Late Madhura Ram Resident Of Village English, P.S- Paharpur, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

3. The Project Manager, Mahila Help Line,Collectoriate, Motihari, East Champaran

4. The Superintendent Of Police, East Champaran, Motihari

5. The Officer Incharge, Paharpur Police Station, District- East Champaran.

6. Lalpari Devi D/O Late Bhikhari Ram Resident Of Village- Jamunia, P.S (Nautan), District-West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kr. Jha, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-08-2016 Heard Mr. Virendra Prasad for the petitioner and Vivek Prasad G.P 7 for the State.

The petitioner questions the legality of the action taken against him by the Project Manager of Mahila Help Line, Collectorate, Motihari East Champaran, Respondent no. 3.

The brief facts of the case is as under ;

Respondent no 6 claiming herself wife of the petitioner and mother of two children born from the wedlock, filed a maintenance proceeding before the Family Court for payment of maintenance for

herself and the two children. The same was allowed in part and the petitioner was directed to make payment for maintenance of the two children only in the sum of Rs. 2000/- per month. Dissatisfied with the said order a revision application being Cr. Rev. No. 441 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner. This Court by a proceeding dated 10.04.2009 (Annexure 1) altered the quantum of maintenance for two children and directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month. The petitioner defaulted in making the regular payment of the maintenance amount which propelled the respondent no. 6 to approach the Help Line. In these circumstances, Annexure 6, was issued by the respondent Project Director, Help Line for his appearance, in person to satisfy as to whether the petitioner has been making payment of the maintenance amount regularly. On query, a stand has been taken by the petitioner that the maintenance amount as directed by this Court (Annexure 1) is being paid regularly to the Respondent no. 6.

This Court would permit the petitioner to present himself or file a fresh affidavit/ reply to the notice of the respondent Project Director stating the compliance of the order passed by the learned Family Court. Once it is shown to the respondent no. 3, no further

action of any nature shall be taken against the petitioner for non payment of the maintenance amount.

The writ application is disposed off.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Prakash/- U