IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1452 of 2009 Md.Imam Qureishi, son of Late Md. Kashim Qoraishi, resident of village-Olhanpur, P.S.-Marhaurah, P.O.-Khodaibag, District- Saran (Chapra). ……..Petitioner Versus Sairabanu, wife of Md. Imam Qoraishi, daughter of Mahbub Qoraishi, resident of Mohalla- Beta Gali, Brahampura, P.S.- Brahampura, District- Muzaffarpur. ………..Opposite Party ----------- 3. 04.11.2011 This revision application has been preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No.114/05 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month to his wife, opposite party for her maintenance. The opposite party filed Maintenance Case No.114/05 claiming to be the wife of the petitioner. After few years of marriage, the petitioner, his sister and brothers started torturing her physically and mentally and demanded Rs.5000/- which was fulfilled by the father of the opposite party, but they again started demanding Rs.20000/- which could not be fulfilled. Thereafter, she has been deserted and has not been maintained by her 2 husband, who is a fruit vendor and his monthly income is more than Rs.4000/-, besides it he has also agricultural land and from it annual income is Rs.50,000/-. Earlier, a petition was also filed for maintenance, which was compromised and a Panchnama was prepared on 6.10.2004 and on the same day, the compromise petition was also filed in maintenance case no.405/01 and the case under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 125 Cr.P.C. were disposed of in view of the compromise, but after the compromise, the petitioner again started to neglect his wife and her children and finally he refused to maintain them. In spite of appearance and participation in reconciliation process, no show-cause has been filed by the petitioner. After taking evidence on behalf of both the parties, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month for the maintenance of his wife and his two minor daughters, who are living with her. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not able to pay the amount of maintenance. He is a salesman of fruit on a Thela and he is 3 not in a position to pay Rs.1500/-per month and he is ready to pay Rs.800/-per month. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party and father of her two minor daughters, who are living with the opposite party. The petitioner has refused to maintain his wife and two minor daughters, although he has sufficient means to maintain them. Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge has directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month only for the maintenance of his wife and two minor daughters. The amount of maintenance is itself meagre. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)