Vijay Kumar Bhagat @ Vijay Kumar v. Anita Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.927 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- East Champaran ====================================================== VIJAY KUMAR BHAGAT @ VIJAY KUMAR Son of Ram Ekbal Bhagat Resident of Village- Bharthuiya, Police Station- Pipra, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

ANITA DEVI D/O Maithur Bhagat Resident of Village- Mahammadpur Majhauliya, Police Station- Rajepur, District- East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 06-02-2024 The instant Revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 303 of 2016, directing the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2/wife vide order dated 24th of May, 2019. Only ground of assailing the instant Revision is that the Opposite Party No. 2 herself voluntarily and on her own accord left her matrimonial home. There was no torture or cruelty upon the opposite party and the petitioner still wants to maintain his wife in her matrimonial home with proper dignity and honour. However, the Trial Court did not consider such aspect of the matter and passed an order directing the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.927 of 2019(4) dt.06-02-2024 2/3 to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The Marriage of the petitioner with the Opposite Party No. 2 is not disputed. The said marriage was held on 8th of June, 2014. It is alleged by the Opposite Party No. 2 that on 20th of September, 2016, the petitioner drove her out from his house after taking away all ornaments and other Stridhan Properties. The petitioner denied such allegation. The parties led evidence. The Trial Court found that the Opposite Party No. 2 is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to maintain his wife at her house with full dignity and honour. The Opposite Party No. 2 left/was driven away from her matrimonial home in 2016, order of maintenance was passed on 24th of May, 2019. In order to show his bona fide, the petitioner has not been able to file the single scarp of paper to show that even a farthing was paid to his wife for her maintenance.

In view of the conduct of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner's plea for keeping the wife in his house with dignity and honour is just an oral submission for the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.927 of 2019(4) dt.06-02-2024 3/3 purpose of this case. Since the petitioner has failed to show his bona fide by carrying out the impugned order dated 24th of May, 2019, when the Opposite Party is admittedly his wife and she has been residing at her parental home, I do not find any material in the instant Revision.

Accordingly the instant Revision is dismissed. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) uttam/- U