IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.338 of 2009 ================================================== Mithilesh Sahani, son of late Kira Sahani, resident of village- Simri Basant, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Muazaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Indra Devi, wife of Sri Mithilesh Sahani, resident of village- Simri Basant, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Muazaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.N.Jha, Add.P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No.06/2006 by which amount of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.1000/-per month to his wife, opposite party no.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for Patna High Court CR. REV. No.338 of 2009 dt.19-12-2011 2 the petitioner is that he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance as he has to support his second wife and five daughters. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the income of the petitioner has increased several times. He has got 8 Bighas of land, tractor and grinding machine and his monthly income is Rs.15- 20,000/-, whereas, the opposite party no.2 has no sufficient means to support herself. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has held that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife, opposite party no.2, whereas, the opposite party no.2 has no sufficient means to support herself. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 19th of December, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)