Patna High CourtCR. REV./337/2016dismissed

Madan Mohan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-04-28Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.337 of 2016 ====================================================== Madan Mohan Prasad Son of Late Ram Sahay Prasad Resident of MohallaRaja Bazar, Motihari, P.O.- Motihari Police Station- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shankar Sah Son of Rameshwar Sah

3. Anand Sah Son of Shankar Sah

4. Raju Devi Wife Shankar Sah

5. Nutan Kumari Wife of Alok Kumar, D/o Shankar Sah, All Resident of Mohalla- Chhatachank Muzaffarpur, Police Station- Kazi Mohammad, District- Muzaffarpur

6. Sushil Kumar Son of Saryug Sah, Resident of Mohalla- Majhauliya Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Kazi Mohammad, Dist.- Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad.(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-04-2017 By the impugned order dated 07.12.2015, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur opposite party no.5 was directed to be paid monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4000/- per month by her husband Alok Kumar. The petitioner is father of said Alok Kumar. The petitioner has not been asked to pay anything. It was the case of the petitioner and the opposite party no.5 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, that there was one time settlement, subsequent to which the petitioner had given a sum of Rs. one lakh. The court below

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.337 of 2016 (2) dt.28-04-2017 2/2 dealing with that aspect of the matter has opined that the said settlement had no legal sanctity and, accordingly, it allowed the petitioner to file a money suit for recovery of the said amount. The court has has also observed that if the opposite party no.5 receives maintenance allowance @ 4000/- per month, she will return the said amount of Rs. one lakh in instalment of a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month.

In my view, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this application, there being no order passed against him, by the court below.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

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