IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.582 of 2019
Chandan Kumar, S/o Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh, aged about 29
years, resident of Mohalla- Par Nawada Neem Tola Behind Church, P.S.-
District-Nawada. … … Petitioner
Versus
Guriya Devi, W/o Chandan Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-resident of Mohalla-
Par Nawada Neem Tola Behind Church, P.S.-District-Nawada, At Present D/o
Dayanand Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Sakrama, P.S.-Asthama, District-
Nalanda
… … Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Deo Raj-Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
18-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This application under SectionArticle 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting
aside the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Nawada in Matrimonial Case No.140 of
2018 by which he has allowed the application filed by the
opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as
maintenance pendente lite and Rs.1,000/- per month as litigation
cost to the opposite party from 11.10.2018 regularly by Rs.10th
of every month.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned
Principal Judge is bad in law as also on facts. He has submitted
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.582 of 2019 dt.18-10-2019
2/3
that the learned Principal Judge has failed to appreciate that for
no justifiable reason, the opposite party has refused to live with
the petitioner. He has also failed to appreciate that as a matter
fact that it is the petitioner, who is being subjected to cruelty by
the opposite party. She has deliberately deserted her matrimonial
house. Hence, she is not entitled for pendente lite maintenance
allowance.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the materials on record, I find that the
opposite party had filed Mahila (Bihar) P. S. Case No.136 of
2016 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and Section4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act for harassing and humiliating her due
to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
5. The petitioner has not denied his relationship
with the opposite party. It is true that he had filed Matrimonial
Case No.83 of 2014 on 11.04.2014 under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1995 for restitution of conjugal rights. However,
the same alone cannot be the ground for coming to a finding that
his wife has deliberately deserted him and has refused to live in
the matrimonial house. Since the wife has alleged that she is
being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial house, no
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.582 of 2019 dt.18-10-2019
3/3
inference can be drawn against her for the reason that she is not
living in the matrimonial house.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a class-III
employee posted at Kolkata in the Finance Department of the
Government of India. Though, he has not disclosed his salary,
the opposite party has stated that his income is about 50-60
thousand per month.
7. Regard being had to the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no
illegality can be found with the order impugned whereby the
petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as
pendente lite maintenance allowance to the opposite party.
8. The application, being devoid of any merit, is
dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 21.10.2019
Transmission Date 21.10.2019