Shishu Pal Patel vs Sangita Devi on 13 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.749 of 2015

1. Shishu Pal Patel S/O- Ram Swaroop Singh, R/o Mohalla- Harischandra
Nagar, P.S.- Beur, District- Patna

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sangita Devi W/O- Shishu Pal Patel, D/O- Ishwar Prasad, Resident of
village- Andi, P.S.- Asthawan, District- Nalanda

…. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 13-07-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party.

The petitioner is husband of the Opposite Party.

He is aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated

22.12.2014, passed, by learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, in Maintenance Case No.

139M of 2012, whereby the learned Principal Judge has

allowed monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.

6,000/- per month in favour of the Opposite Party from the

date of the order and Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date

of filing of the application till passing of the order, in

exercise of power under Section 125 of the Code of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2017

2/4

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The sole ground, which has been taken on

behalf of the petitioner, to assail the impugned order, dated

22.12.2014, is that a matrimonial case has been filed by

the petitioner being Matrimonial Case No. 620 of 2012

before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

READ  Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983

Patna, in which the Court has allowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/-

per month, payable for maintenance pendente lite to the

Opposite Party. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has also been

awarded in her favour as litigation cost in that case.

According to the petitioner, the Opposite Party suppressed

this fact in the proceeding before the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, leading to

passing of the impugned order. It is also his case that the

petitioner did not have any notice about the said

proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Nalanda, at Biharsharif.

This is not in dispute that by an order, dated

24.06.2014, the learned Principal Judge, Family court,

Patna, has allowed monthly maintenance allowance at the

rate of Rs. 2,000/- during the pendency of the said

matrimonial case on a petition filed by the Opposite Party

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This fact was
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2017

3/4

not brought to the notice of the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, which is evident from

the impugned order.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the

impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law in view of the

Supreme Court’s decision, in the case of Dalip Singh v.

State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC

114.

Since there is no dispute that the Opposite Party

READ  Amin Khan @ Aamin Khan vs State on 8 August, 2017

has been allowed maintenance under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Patna, and the Opposite Party, by concealing this

material fact obtained the impugned order, dated

22.12.2014, the same deserves to be set aside. The

impugned order, dated 22.12.2014 is accordingly set aside.

This application is allowed.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, has pointed out that in the light of the impugned

order, dated 22.12.2014, passed by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, certain

deductions have been made from the salary of the

petitioner by his employer at Kanpur for payment to the

Opposite Party.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.749 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2017

4/4

It is directed that the said amount shall be

adjusted against the amount payable to the Opposite Party

in the light of the order passed in Maintenance Case No.

620 of 2012, dated 24.06.2014.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-

U √ T √

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *