IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13091 of 2011
Niranjan Kumar Sinha
Versus
Reena Devi
----------------------------------
03. 17.08.2011. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to make necessary
correction in the provision of law. Permission is
accorded.
Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed against the order
dated 20.12.2010 as contained in Annexure ‘3’ passed
by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Divorce
case No.46 of 2007 whereby the learned Court below
allowed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and directed this petitioner to pay
Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to the
respondent, Reena Devi.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondent Reena Devi had lodged
F.I.R. against the petitioner under Section 498 (A) and
during investigation, the police found that in fact
because of adultery, there is dispute between the
parties and the respondent has filed this criminal case
under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C. and on the basis of that
finding, final form has been submitted. However, the
learned Court below considering the statement of the
-2-
respondent took cognizance under Section 498 (A) of
I.P.C.
According to the learned counsel, in such view
of the matter, the petitioner has got good prima facie
case as the divorce case has been filed on the ground of
adultery. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner is not regular employee. Although, he is
an Advocate, he is not a regular practitioner and he
does freelance work of Rashtriya Sahara newspaper and
he has got no sufficient income to pay Rs.1500/- per
month to the respondent.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that the learned Court below has considered all these
aspects of the matter. The learned Court below also
found that the person against whom adultery is alleged
has died in the year 2007 itself and this divorce case
has been filed in the year 2007. The learned Court
below also considered the fact that the petitioner is an
Advocate and according to the learned Court below
even now a skill labour can get Rs.4000/- per month.
Considering all these aspects of the matter, the
learned Court below granted Rs.1500/- as maintenance
to the respondent per month. So far the finding of the
police regarding adultery is concerned, it is not binding
on the Civil Court. This is a proceeding under the Hindu
Marriage Act and so far adultery is concerned, the
petitioner has to prove the same in this case.
-3-
In view of the above facts and circumstances
of the case, in my opinion, it is not a case that the
Court below exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by
law and that any illegality has been committed.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and it is
dismissed.
Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)