IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4750 of 2019

Ram Pravesh Yadav, Son of Late Suraj Yadav, Resident of Village-Manpur,
P.O.-P.S.-Chitbara Gaon, Disrict-Ballia(U.P) At Present Resident of 71 BN
SSB, Piprakothi, P.O.-P.S.-Piprakothi, District -East Champaran at Motihari

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The Union of India through DG, S.S.B. Force Head Quarter, R.K.Puram
New Delhi

2. The ADG.-SSB Force Head Quarter, R.K. Puram, New Delhi

3. The State of BIhar through the IG, SSB Frontier Zonal Office Bihar Zone
3rd Floor of Karpoori Thakur Sadan Asiana Digha Road, Patna

4. The DIG, SSB Regional Office, Bettiah District West Champaran Bihar

5. The Commandant 7IBN SSB Piprakothi, at Motihari, District-East
Champaran Bihar

6. The Deputy Commandant 7IBN SSB PIPrakothi at Motihari, District-East
Champaran Bihar
. Smt. Ranju Yadav Daughter fof Munnilal Yadav Resident of Village-

Rampur, P.O.-P.S.-Rasra District-Balia (U.P.)

… … Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwendra Sharan Pandey
Advocate
For the Respondent/ State: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj
GP-5
Mr. Dhurendra Kumar
AC to GP-5
For the Union of India : Mr. S. D. Sanjay
Addl. S.G.

Ms. Kanak Verma
CGC

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-04-2019
Patna High Court CWJC No.4750 of 2019 dt.10-04-2019
2/6

A supplementary affidavit has been filed during the

course of arguments.

2. Let it be kept on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S. D. Sanjay, for the

Union of India.

4. The petitioner, who is a Constable in SSB force

and is presently posted at Motihari, has challenged the order

dated 09.06.2018 passed by the Commandant, 71 st Battalion

SSB, Motihari Camp at Piprakothi, District – East Champaran

(Bihar), signed and communicated to the petitioner by the

Deputy Commandant contained in Memo No. 4695-97,

whereby 30 per cent of the pay and allowances of the

petitioner has been directed to be deducted for the purposes of

the same to be remitted in the account of the wife of the

petitioner, namely, Smt. Ranju Yadav.

5. The petitioner is facing matrimonial dispute with

his wife who had showed up before the Commandant and had

informed him that despite her request to reside with the

petitioner as his legally wedded wife, the petitioner refused to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4750 of 2019 dt.10-04-2019
3/6

live with her. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was

asked to furnish his explanation with respect to various facts,

namely, whether any order had been passed by any Court of

competent jurisdiction with regard to maintenance of his wife

or was there any family/social arrangement with the approval

of the petitioner and his wife with respect to payment of any

maintenance amount. The aforesaid notice which has been

given to the petitioner on 06.04.2018 is stated to have been

replied by him. The petitioner submits that he categorically

informed his superior officer that he has filed a petition under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal

rights with his wife as she had voluntarily deserted him, which

application is still pending consideration before a competent

Court of law. The petitioner also admitted that a case under

Section 498A has been filed by his wife against him and other

members of his family and she has also filed an application

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the

petitioner. In none of these petitions, any order has been

passed by any competent Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4750 of 2019 dt.10-04-2019
4/6

6. Under such circumstances, the order impugned

dated 09.06.2018, deducting 30 per cent of the pay and

allowances of the petitioner to be remitted in the Bank account

of his wife has been passed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged

the order on two grounds; one being that the application for

restitution of conjugal rights and the willful refusal of the wife

to stay with the petitioner has not been taken into account by

the commanding officer/Commandant and the other that the

order, though is stated to have been passed by the

Commandant, who only is the authorised/prescribed officer

under the SSB Act of 2007, the same has been signed by the

Deputy Commandant, who is not authorized to pass such

order.

8. Both the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner

have been noted only for being rejected.

9. Section 61(2)(i) empowers the prescribed officer

to direct for payment of maintenance to the wife of an

employee or his legitimate or illegitimate child or step child,

subject to the limitation of Section 63 of the Act, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.4750 of 2019 dt.10-04-2019
5/6

proscribes any deduction of more than 50 per cent for the

aforesaid purpose.

10. The prescribed officer has been defined under

Rule 181 of the SSB Rules of 2009 which in case of

subordinate officers and enrolled persons, like the petitioner, is

the Commandant.

11. From the perusal of the order dated 09.06.2018

contained in Annexure- 1, it is clearly reflected that after

consideration of the facts in a dispassionate manner, the order

of deduction of 30 per cent of the pay and allowances of the

petitioner has been passed by the competent authority,

namely, the Commandant which has been communicated to the

petitioner by the Deputy Commandant.

12. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with

the order as 30 per cent would be 1/3 of the pay and

allowances of the petitioner which is required to be paid for

maintenance of his wife. The aforesaid order also appears to

be temporary/interim in nature.

13. Should a competent Court decide about the

quantum of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to his
Patna High Court CWJC No.4750 of 2019 dt.10-04-2019
6/6

wife, it would be open for the petitioner to make available that

order before the Commandant and make a request to him for

revisiting the impugned order. In case of restitution of conjugal

rights of the petitioner and his wife also, the petitioner would

have the liberty to have the order varied/ modified/rescinded.

14. Thus, for the present, this Court not finding any

fault with the order impugned dated 09.06.2018, the writ

petition must fail.

The writ petition is dismissed with the observation as

indicated above.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
skm/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 12.04.2019
Transmission Date