IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 301 of 2008 Narsing Pandit son of Late Dukhi Pandit, resident of village Rampur Jalalpur, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur…………………………..Opposite Party-Petitioner Versus Sudama Devi wife of Narsing Pandit, resident of village Rampur Jalalpur, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur…………………………..Applicant-Opposite Party. For the petitioner : Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the opposite party : M/s Bijay Bhushan Prasad and Sandip Kr. Singh, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by opposite party- petitioner challenging order dated 09.01.2008 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur allowed Misc.(Maintenance) Case No.58 of 2006 filed by the applicant- opposite party and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.700.00 per month to his wife as maintenance. 3. The admitted case of the parties was that the petitioner was the husband of the opposite party and that opposite party was not living with the petitioner since long. The opposite party (wife) has been able to prove that she has got no independent source of income whereas according to her the husband had an earning from his business as Kumhar and earns about Rs.10,000.00 per month but she could not produce any account with respect thereto. On the other hand the petitioner (husband) denied the said claim and stated that 2 he was a disabled person as one of his legs had fractured earlier. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order it is quite apparent that apart from the earlier fracture in one of his legs there is no other disability in the petitioner and in his petition of Complaint Case No.320 of 2006 he had himself stated that after completing his work as Kumhar he was sitting at Khalihan on a cot and was taking meal when the accused persons, namely his son and wife snatched his watch from his wrist and Rs.1300.00 from his pocket. This complaint filed by the petitioner himself completely falsified the excuse raised by the petitioner and proved that the petitioner had been earning from his business as Kumhar. Furthermore, the learned court below has fixed merely Rs.700.00 per month as maintenance to his wife. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)