IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.26 of 2009 RAM KHELAWAN BIND S/O SRI SHIWBHAJAN BIND R/O VILL. BAJDIHWAN, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DIST. KAIMUR (BHABUA) ----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURYA MUKHI DEVI D/O SRI NARAYAN BIND R/O VILL. HARNATHPUR , P.S. SONHAN, DIST. KAIMUR ( BHABUA) --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 19.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He is aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2008, passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court Kaimur at Bhabua in Maintenance case no. 61 of 2007 (Sury Mukhi Devi vs. Ram Khelawan Bind), whereby on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties it has been found that the applicant/ opposite party no.2 is entitled to maintenance to be paid by the husband/ petitioner and accordingly it was directed that a sum of Rs. 1250/- per month shall be payable to the applicant/ opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order impugned on the ground that in view of settlement arrived at by and between the parties the wife/ opposite party no.2 are voluntarily residing separately. The compromise on which the petitioner relies is the settlement in the shape of punchnama annexed to this application as Annexure-2. It appears that the same was also pressed into service by husband in course of the proceeding. Larned trial Court has considered the veracity/legality/ relevancy of the aforesaid punchnama in great detail with 2 reference to the deposition of the witnesses as would appear from paragraph no.7 of the order impugned. On a consideration of the entire matter it has been found that the same has not been supported by some of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the petitioner/husband. Learned Court below has taken a view that the signature of the applicant/wife appearing thereon has been out rightly denied by her. In that view of the matter the onus was heavily on the husband to prove the aforesaid punchnama/application which was allegedly signed by her also. It has also been found that the father of the applicant/wife is not witness to the said document. The legal aspect of the punchnama has also been taken into account and discussed in paragraph no.8 of the order. This Court in view of these findings do not find any illegality in the order. No case for interference has been made out as well as no case for notice is made out. This application is dismissed at the threshold. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)