RANJAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.2.2008, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya in Misc. Case No. 70/05/86/03, whereby on a consideration of materials on record including the evidence adduced by the parties, it has been found that O.P. No. 2 (Asha Devi) is legally-wedded wife of the Petitioner (husband) who has neglected her and she is, therefore, entitled to maintenance to be paid to her by the Petitioner.

(2.) At this stage, this Court notices that Cr. Revision No. 262/08 was preferred by the present O.P. No. 2 against the same order making a grievance that the order does not set out the date from which maintenance under the impugned order shall be payable. In the said case, notices were issued to O.P. No. 2 which was validly served but the Petitioner (husband/O.P. No. 2) did not appear. Accordingly said matter was disposed of by this Court by order dated 23.9.2010. Relevant portion whereof reads as under:

(3.) While assailing the order, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that as per the case of the applicant-opposite party No. 2 herself, she was married to Petitioner in the year 1974 and thereafter she remained with him for only two years in course whereof she gave birth to a son. Thereafter she started living at the house of the father of the Petitioner in Gaya who used to maintain her. It is the contention of the Petitioner that after about 25 years of her alleged marriage the present case has been lodged seeking maintenance. It is the Petitioner's case that he was married with one Shakuntala Devi in the year 1970 and the wedlock had produced four offsprings. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that all the official documents would indicate that Shakuntala Devi is the wife of the Petitioner. The name of O.P. No. 2 does not figure in those documents as the wife of the Petitioner. It is thus the contention that the order impugned is in the teeth of materials on record and thus requires to be interfered with. It is also contended that maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- fixed under the order impugned is on the excessive side considering the fact that Petitioner was getting only Rs. 12000/-to 13000/-.