The petitioner/husband has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month in lieu of interim maintenance as per the order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. (Maintenance) case No. 102/2008.. The matter was between Arvind Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar ( Criminial Revision no. 623 of 2011) and was laid before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi on 29th November 2013 at Patna High Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Husband/petitioner has confronted the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara in Cr. Misc. (Maintenance) case No. 102/2008 whereby and where under the petitioner/husband has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month in lieu of interim maintenance to be effective from date of passing or order as well as Rs. 4000/- as litigation cost.
After hearing both sides, it is apparent that the status of the parties are admitted one. It is further found admitted regarding birth of a minor girl child out of the said wedlock. It has also been revealed that during hearing of anticipatory bail petition that was filed on behalf of husband vide Cr. Misc. No. 30002/2008 in a case criminal case under Section 498A IPC Cr.P.C along with other Sections filed by the wife, Rs. Amounted to2000/- was granted in favour of wife right from institution of the police case.
The Petitioner/Husband mentions that the ground for interim Maintenance is illegal and not justified because his wife was suffering from Mental Disorder , she deserted him without any valid reason and A divorce suit is pending on behalf of the aforesaid plea.
JUDGEMENT:
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Aditya Kumar Trivedi after observing all the facts of the case, the order for granting of interim maintenance is found and held to be interlocutory order and on account therefore, revision in terms of Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act is found barred.
No wife shall be allowed to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in disloyalty, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living individually by mutual consent. As stated that ,the divorce suit is still pending on behalf of the aforesaid plea, the husband is not liable to pay the Maintenance. Until the wedlock is dissolved the wife cannot claim the Maintenance.
According to the Court, after hearing the facts , there was no reason for granting the Interim Maintenance .Hence the court dismisses the Petition.
“PRIME LEGAL” is a full-service Law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of Experience in an array of sectors amd practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category ofbest law fire, best lawyer,best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY APURVI NAWALGARIA.
