Patna High Court
Sobrita Devi vs Sufal Rai on 28 January, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1433 of 2017
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45894 of 2015
======================================================
Sobrita Devi Wife of Sufal Rai, Daughter of Dukhan Rai, Resident of Village-
Barapatti Pindour Tola Birpur Gajahara, Police Station- Ladania, District-
Madhubani, at present residing at Village- Mangraouni, Police Station-
Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sufal Rai Son of Shiv Shankar Rai, Resident of Village- Barapatti Pindour
Tola Birpur Gajahara, Police Station- Ladania, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
21.08.2013
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Madhubani whereby and whereunder the learned Family Court
allowed the application by the petitioner and as an interim
measure enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.250/- to
Rs.1000/- per month.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner filed a Maintenance Case bearing no. 19 of 2000
against the respondent in which the petitioner was allowed
maintenance amount of Rs.250/- per month in the year 2002.
Thereafter, in 2009 the application was filed for enhancement of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1433 of 2017 dt.28-01-2025
the maintenance amount and as an interim measure, the interim
maintenance was enhanced from Rs.250/- to Rs.1000/- and the
matter has been kept pending. Learned counsel further submits
that the learned Family Court has not considered the pitiable
condition of the petitioner and how she would survive on such
meager amount. The respondent has been earning Rs.15,000/-
per month while working at Delhi and it was not proper for the
learned Family Court to pass such orders at the rate of Rs.1000/-
per month after enhancement from Rs.250/- per month. Learned
counsel further submits that the impugned order needs
interference by this Court and a reasonable amount of
maintenance ought to be allowed to the petitioner. The learned
Counsel also submits that the respondent is not making payment
of the enhanced amount of Rs.1000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent submits that the claim of the petitioner about
enhancement of the maintenance amount has not been finally
disposed of. In terms of order of the learned Prinicipal Judge,
Family Court, Madhubani the respondent has been making
payment of Rs. 1000/- per month and it would be fit and proper
if the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is directed to
dispose of the claim of the petitioner about the claim of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1433 of 2017 dt.28-01-2025
enhancement of the maintenance amount since it appears from
the impugned order that the matter was fixed for further
proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that moreover the
impugned order was passed in the year 2013 and the petition
moved before this Court only in the year 2015.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions of the
parties and from perusal of the record, I find that this petition
has been filed against an order which has been passed on
prayers of the petitioner for enhancement of the maintenance
amount being paid by the respondent. Further, from the
impugned order, I do not find any consideration about the
income of the parties or reasons for allowing Rs.1000/- per
month only as enhanced amount. It also appears that the matter
was kept pending for further proceeding by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Madhubai which shows the final orders
for enhancement are yet to be passed. It has also come in
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent has not been making payment of the enhanced
amount though submissions to contrary has been made by
learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
6. Since this Court is not supposed to appreciate the
facts for the first time which were not considered by the learned
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1433 of 2017 dt.28-01-2025
Family Court, I am not inclined to pass any orders on the merits
in the present case and remand the matter to the learned
Principal Judge Family Court for passing a reasoned order after
consideration of all the aspects of the matter and dispose of the
claim of the petitioner by a speaking order. The learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani is also directed to
dispose of the claim for enhancement within three months from
the date of receipt/production of copy of the order considering
the antiquity of the matter.
7. Learned Family Court shall also verify about arrear
amount, if any, in terms of its order dated 21.08.2013 and make
the respondent pay the said amount.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is
disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 30.01.2025
Transmission Date N/A
