Patna High Court
Pappu Kumar vs Seema Kumari on 4 April, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.198 of 2024
======================================================
Pappu Kumar, Son of Ashok Shah, Resident of Village-Judge Bharsara, P.S.-
Bihiya, District-Bhojpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Seema Kumari, Wife of Pappu Kumar, Daughter of Munnilal Shah Resident
of Village and P.O.-Itaadhi, P.S. Itaadhi, District-Buxar (Bihar).Buxar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prakash Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend
to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
07.04.2021
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Buxar in Maintenance Case No. 81/2020 whereby and
whereunder the learned Principal Judge directed the petitioner to
pay Rs.10,000/-per month as interim maintenance and Rs.
10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a Group D employee with Railways and he is
not in a position to make the payment of interim maintenance
amount of Rs.10,000/-per month as his income has wrongly
been assessed at Rs.50,000/-per month without any material in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2024 dt.04-04-2025
support of such contention. The learned counsel further submits
that towards arrears, Rs.12,000/-per month is also being
deducted. Thus, the respondent is getting Rs.22,000/-per month
from the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that this
amount of Rs.22,000/- is being deducted from the salary of the
petitioner by his employer, but the petitioner is not in a position
to make payment of even Rs.10,000/-per month to the
respondent as he has taken number of loans and has to pay
installment for repayment of loans. The learned counsel refers to
his supplementary affidavit whereby and whereunder he has
brought on record gross salary of the petitioner and net amount
being paid to him. The learned counsel next submits that the
petitioner was not even heard and the order was passed behind
his back.
4. Perused the record.
5. Perusal of record shows the opposite
party/petitioner herein did not appear before the learned trial
court despite service of notice and the case was heard ex-parte. I
think that the petitioner ought to have raised the matter first
before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar which
has passed the impugned order about the status of his income
and should have brought this fact to the notice of the learned
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2024 dt.04-04-2025
Principal Judge, Family Court for consideration and allowed the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar to pass
appropriate orders in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020).
6. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to approach the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Buxar by furnishing all documents and contesting the claim of
the respondent.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant
petition stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
