Disposed

Kanak Kumari v. Achal Kumar Sinha @ Achal Kuma

Patna HC16 Oct 2012CWJC/2503/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 seeking directions for an early disposal of a matrimonial case and enforcement of interim maintenance. The High Court advised the petitioner to cooperate in evidence to expedite disposal and directed her to invoke Section 18 of the Family Courts Act for enforcement of maintenance arrears.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner advised to cooperate in evidence; directed to invoke jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 18 for enforcement of maintenance.

Kanak Kumari Vs Achal Kumar Sinha @ Achal Kuma — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2503 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Kanak Kumari, D/O Late Baleshwar Prasad Singh and W/O Achal Kumar Sinha, R/O Gola Road, Near Khaon Saheb Ghat, Salempur, Gola Road, Barh, P.O.- Barh, District- Patna.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus Achal Kumar Sinha @ Achal Kumar Singh, S/O Tapeshwar Prasad, at present residing in the House of Shri Jagdish Kumar, F. Sector, House No. 121, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Anjana Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶4

4 16-10-2012 Heard Ms. Anjana Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶5

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed requiring a direction to the Additional Principal Judge, Patna to dispose of Matrimonial Case No.47 of 1999 in terms of the direction issued in C.R. No.996 of 2007as also for enforcing its order dated 12.9.2001 (incorrectly mentioned as ’12.1.2001’ ).

¶6

Pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2012, a report has been received from the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in which it is stated that the evidence of petitionerrespondent has been closed and the matter is now posted for evidence of opposite party-petitioner who has not been doing proper Pairvi in the matter. The position is contested by Ms.

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.2503 of 2012 (4) dt.16-10-2012

¶8

¶9

Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite partypetitioner. It is also mentioned that the petitioner-respondent had been directed to clear the huge arrears of maintenance vide order dated 28.10.2010 and vide order passed on 6.4.2011, considering the hardships of opposite party-petitioner, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which has since been deposited by the petitioner-respondent and has also been received by the opposite party-petitioner. It is further reported that if the opposite partypetitioner co-operates in adducing her evidence, the matter may be disposed of in the light of the direction issued in C.R. No.996 of 2007.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner while denying that any delay in disposal of the proceedings could be attributed to her submitted that despite the order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Family Court below awarding interim maintenance to the opposite party-petitioner and huge arrears having been accumulated, the order has not been carried out by the petitioner-respondent save and except payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/-.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials on record as also the report of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. In so

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.2503 of 2012 (4) dt.16-10-2012

¶13

¶14

far as the prayer made by the petitioner requiring an early disposal of the matrimonial case is concerned, taking into consideration the report of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna the petitioner would be well advised to cooperate in the proceedings by leading her evidence on day to day basis so as to ensure an early disposal thereof.

¶15

In so far as the second prayer regarding the noncompliance of the order of payment of interim maintenance dated 12.9.2001 is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court as provided under section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for ensuring compliance of the direction and which shall be considered by the learned Family Court below and disposed of in accordance with law keeping in mind that the object behind award of interim maintenance is to provide succour to a party during the pendency of the proceeding and thus the petitioner-husband is under a legal duty to abide by and comply with the direction so issued by the court below.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is disposed of.

¶17

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶18

SKPathak/-

Kanak Kumari v. Achal Kumar Sinha @ Achal Kuma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanak Kumari v. Achal Kumar Sinha @ Achal Kuma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lal Muni Devi and Anr. Vs Smt. Binita Saha @ Binita Sah

Sri Thakur Navaneet Priyajee @ Vs Lakhendar Bhagat and Anr.

Yogendra Choudhary Vs Meena Devi and Ors.

Meena Devi Vs Sarmila Devi and Anr.

Mahanth Sudarshan Giri and Ors. Vs Kaushal Kishore Pandey and Ors.

Dhirendar Kumar Vs Bihar State Housing Board and Anr.