ORDER
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.8.2006. passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 66 of 2005, whereby the petitioner, who was the opposite party in the aforesaid case was directed to pay Maintenance Allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant/opposite party No. 2, herein.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.
3. It may be mentioned here that though notice was served upon the opposite party No. 2, as per the office report but she has neither appeared nor has instructed any lawyer to represent him.
4. Nevertheless, the hearing of this case has been taken up in presence of the learned Counsel for the respondent-State.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submits that the learned Court below while passing the order of maintenance, failed to consider the fact that the applicant/opposite party No. 2 has willfully withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse and furthermore, that the learned Court below has also failed to consider that the total earnings of the petitioner are not sufficient to meet the demand for maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and in fact the amount is quite unreasonable. Learned Counsel adds further that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, a compromise was effected through the process of mediation between the petitioner and his wife and pursuant to which it was agreed that both the spouses would live together and the pending litigations including the maintenance case would be withdrawn. The opposite party No. 2 had come to live with the petitioner, but after a few months, she voluntarily left the house of the petitioner and had filed a petition before the learned Family Court, alleging, falsely that she did not understand the terms of settlement, which was arrived at through the process of mediation and that she had never forgone her claim for maintenance and had insisted before the Court below to pass an order directing the petitioner/husband to pay the amount of maintenance and on the basis of such prayer, the learned Principal Judge, by his order dated 23.11.2007, has not only directed the petitioner to settle the dispute with the opposite party No. 2 and pay the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month but also directed the Circle/Sub-Division Agriculture Officer, Chas (Head of the Department of the petitioner's office) for deduction of the maintenance amount from the salary of the petitioner for payment of entire maintenance due to opposite party No. 2. Learned Counsel explains further that as a matter of fact it is the opposite party No. 2, who without reasonable cause, has again withdrawn herself from the company of the petitioner and has made false and frivolous allegation against him.
6. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand invites attention to the petition dated 19.4.2007, filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the Court below and submits that according to the categorical statement of the opposite party No. 2 in the aforesaid petition, a reconciliation was effected between her and the petitioner but soon after the reconciliation, the petitioner had again resorted to his previous conduct and has changed his attitude and has ultimately refused to keep her and consequently, she had to take asylum in her father's house.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner intervenes at this juncture to inform with reference to the order passed by the learned Court below on 20.5.2007 and submits that a petition was filed under the joint signatures of both the parties before the Family Court that they are prepared to enter into a compromise to settle their entire disputes. It appears from the aforesaid order of the learned Court below that a petition was certainly filed by the parties and the matter was posted for hearing on 15.6.2007. However, it appears that no further orders could be passed on the aforesaid petition since admittedly, the parties had once again separated from each other in the month of July, 2007 and the opposite party No. 2 had. therefore, insisted upon compliance of the earlier order of the Family Court, under which the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of monthly maintenance to her.
8. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has considered the evidences adduced by the applicant/wife and the respondent husband and has recorded its finding of facts on two issues, namely, that since 23.11.2003. the applicant-wife has been forced to live in her parent's house and that the opposite party No. 2-husband has neglected and refused to maintain her and, therefore, it was held by the learned trial Court that the applicant-wife is entitled to maintenance allowance and on the second issue relating to the quantum of maintenance allowance, the trial Court had recorded its finding on the basis of evidence that admittedly the opposite party/husband was an employee under the District Agriculture Office, posted at Bokaro and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month after all deductions and holding that the opposite party/husband is a man of means and is very much capable of maintaining his wife and, therefore, the trial Court had directed that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- be paid as monthly maintenance allowance to the wife. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Court below and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court in revision application. As regards the order dated 23.11.2007, passed by the learned Court below, directing the opposite party/present petitioner to pay the maintenance allowance and further direction to the petitioner's employer to deduct the amount of monthly maintenance allowance from his salary, the same has been passed by the learned Court below on considering the application filed by the wife and the fact that the spouses have not reconciled and have been living separately and that the wife is entitled to claim and realize maintenance and further, that the husband is liable to comply with the order of maintenance. I do not find any infirmity in this order.
9. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application, the same, is accordingly, dismissed.