IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.779 of 2007 AMRU NISHA, W/o Nazir Hussain, R/o Village- Surtapur, P.S.-Dinara, District- Rohtas at present residing at village- Chogain, P.S.-Murar, District- Buxar. …. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nazir Hussain, S/o Ibrahim Hussain, Resident of village- Surtapur, P.S.-Dinara, District- Rohtas …. Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate. ----------- 5 25-06-2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is wife, is aggrieved by the order dated 31st March, 2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar in maintenance case no. 28 (M)/2005 whereby learned court has refused to grant any maintenance in favour of the petitioner(wife of Opposite Party No.- 2). This is what the learned court has observed in Paragraph 11: “According to applicant the income of O.P. is Rs. 3000/- P.M. besides having lands and cattles. But, O.P. has denied this and has filed the certificate given by his employer, which shows that he is a daily wage earner and gets Rs. 70/- per day. The O.P.Ws. have also supported this. They further stated that the applicant is earning about Rs. 4000/- 2 P.M. by sewing of clothes. The applicant has also admitted that she is maintaining herself by sewing clothes. Thus, apparently the income of O.P. is very low and the applicant as well is not earning too much, but if both of them live together and then they can be able to maintain themselves in better way by their joint earning. Therefore, the applicant is directed to live with her husband at his house and if she does not live with him she may give the custody of the children to the O.P.” It appears that the petitioner put up a case before the court that she was tortured on account of non- fulfilment of demand of dowry and was ultimately ousted. The brother of the petitioner has been examined in this case as AW-1. Paragraph -9 of the order impugned indicates that he has not supported the aforesaid factum. This witness has gone on record stating that the husband had never made any demand of dowry from them and that he is/was willing to maintain his wife and children. There is thus no justification for interference with the order impugned. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K.Mandal, J. )