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,
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
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 √
