SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aradhana Kumari @ Aradhana Devi vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 17 April, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56153 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58772 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-

Aradhana Kumari @ Aradhana Devi, Wife of Sri Pawan Kumar Mandal,
Resident of Village- Khuthadih, Police Station- Barahiya, in the District of
Lakhisarai. Presently residing in Village- Mokamaghat, Police Station-
Mokama, District- Patna.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Mandal @ Pavan Kumar, Son of Late Arjun
Mandal, Resident of Village- Khuthadih, Police Station- Barahiya, in the
District of Lakhisarai.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murlidhar, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

5 17-04-2019 The petitioner seeks modification of the order

passed by this Court on 25.07.2018 in Cr. Misc. No. 58772

of 2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/wife

for cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2, the husband

of the petitioner, has been rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56153 of 2018(5) dt.17-04-2019
2/3

2. The application for cancellation of bail was

rejected on the averment made on behalf of the opposite

party No. 2 that Rs. 30,000/- is being deducted from his

salary and is being remitted in the account of the

petitioner/wife.

3. The present petition has been filed on the

ground that at the time of grant of a bail to the opposite

party No. 2 on 12.12.2013, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35137

of 2013, it was directed that, as a condition precedent for a

bail, the husband was required to pay to the petitioner/wife

an interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

4. However, while recording the aforesaid

observation/direction, this Court, in the aforesaid order, was

categorical in making such order subject to any order on the

point by the competent Court.

5. Since Rs. 30,000/- per month, in all, is being

deducted from the salary of the husband of the petitioner,

out of which Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as an interim

maintenance in the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 maintenance pendente lite inclusive of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56153 of 2018(5) dt.17-04-2019
3/3

cost of litigation) and instalment of Rs. 20,000/- towards the

final amount of Rs. 5,84,000/-, there is no reason for this

Court to interfere or modify the order rejecting the

application seeking cancellation of bail of the opposite party

No. 2.

6. In case, the remittance of money in the account

of the petitioner/wife shall be stopped for any unexplained

reason in future, it would be open for the petitioner/wife to

approach this Court for necessary orders.

7. The application for the modification of the order

dated 25.07.2018 is, therefore, rejected with the

observation as indicated above.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
Praveen-II/-

U T

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation