- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the private opposite parties who have appeared through Advocate upon notice.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2011 passed in M.P Case No. 97 of 2008, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to his deserted wife and Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to his minor daughter, who is living with her mother, and the maintenance has been ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the petition. At the very outset, it is stated that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the direction to the petitioner to make the payment of maintenance to his deserted wife and daughter, or with the quantum thereof. However, in the facts of this case, it is felt that the order directing the petitioner to make the payment from the date of filing of the petition, shall cause undue hardship to the petitioner. It appears from the record that there are criminal cases also between the parties and in one such case, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner filed an application for regular bail in the High Court which was disposed of by order dated 17.4.2009 in B.A No. 221 of 2009. By the said order, though bail was granted to the petitioner, but one of the conditions imposed was as follows :- "(g) not enter into the revenue limit of Dhanbad District without prior permission of this Court, but for attending the Court in connection with this case, he will be free to enter the limits for a period to the extent necessary and will leave the limits soon after the case is adjourned."
(3.) IT is the submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to said restriction imposed upon him, the petitioner was also deprived of his job for a considerable period. However, learned counsel submits that in the year 2011, the petitioner has again got his job back. In view of the fact that due to the conditions imposed by this Court, the petitioner was deprived of his job for a considerable period, during which, he had no earning, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the maintenance be ordered to be paid from the date of order and the impugned order be modified at least to that extent. Learned counsel for the opposite parties objected the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the criminal case was filed against the petitioner due to the misbehavior with the opposite party No.2 and the said case is still pending. It has also been submitted that in the facts of this case, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad was perfectly justified in making the order for payment of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and it needs no interference.;