MUNNA KURAISHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, who has chosen to appear suo motu.

(2.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2007 by the learned Principal Judge, Family court, Gopalganj, allowing the claim of maintenance of the opposite party no.2 for herself, as also for her three minor children, born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and opposite party no.2, has preferred the present revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') assailing the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order of maintenance.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and they are legally wedded husband and wife respectively. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the impugned order dated 22.6.2010, maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per moth is being paid to the opposite party no.2. However, the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner being the husband is prepared to keep and maintain the opposite party no.2 as his legally wedded wife, but without there being any sufficient cause she is refusing to live with him and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, there has been infraction of Section 125(4) Cr. P.C. Secondly, it is urged that the claim of maintenance in favour of three minor children has also been allowed but they were not the claimants before the learned Family Court. According to the learned counsel, the issues were raised on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, but the issues have neither been considered properly nor discussed, yet the claim of maintenance of the opposite party no.2 has been allowed by the impugned final order. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the matter requires reconsideration.