IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1130 of 2009 Jay Kant Kamat @ Chotu Kamat, son of Benu Kamat, resident of village-Belhawar, P.S.- Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. … Opposite party/Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Tripura Devi wife of Jay Kant Kamat @ Chotu Kamat, resident of village – Belhawar, P.S. Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. … Applicant-Opposite parties ----------- 3. 02.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family court, Madhubani in M. R. No. 44 of 2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1000/- to his wife and Rs.500/- to her minor child per month as maintenance. The wife of the petitioner, opposite party no. 2, Tripura Devi filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself and her minor son, Prakash Kamat aged about two years. After three years of marriage the petitioner and his family member started demanding Rs.50,000/- to purchase a motor-cycle as the petitioner was working at Bombay in Electricity Company. When the wife showed her inability, she was tortured 2 and ultimately ousted from the house of the petitioner. The earning of the petitioner is more than Rs.10,000/- per month as pay. Wife, opposite party no. 2 has no means to maintain herself and her son who is residing with her at her Naihar. It is further alleged that the petitioner has contacted second marriage with another lady and he is living with her. The petitioner has appeared and filed his show- cause admitting the opposite party no.2 as his wife and the other allegations have been denied. It is also alleged that the wife, opposite party no. 2 has illicit relation with one Sabari Kamat at her Naihar and as such she wants to live at her Naihar. Both the parties have adduced their evidence before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unable to pay the amount of maintenance granted by the impugned order. He is ready to maintain his wife and his minor son. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also to maintain other members of his family. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits 3 that after considering the evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has passed an order of maintenance directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- to his wife and Rs.500/- to his son per month, which is a meagre amount itself. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of minor son. Five witnesses have been examined on behalf of opposite party no.2. P.W. 5 is opposite party no. 2, wife of the petitioner itself. She has supported her case and has stated that the petitioner has tried to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil. She has further stated that the petitioner has performed second marriage in Bombay with one Urmila Deiv who is resident of village Rupauli, P. S. Jhanjharpur. She has further stated that the petitioner is working in a factory at Bombay and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Other witnesses have also supported the case of opposite party no.2. The petitioner has also adduced five witnesses, out of whom, D.W. 3 is 4 petitioner himself and he has stated that opposite party no. 2 is his wife and he works as a labour at Bombay and his monthly income is Rs.2000/- per month. He has only two kathas of homestead land. He has never tortured his wife rather she left his house herself. The other witnesses on behalf of the petitioner have also admitted the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 as husband and wife. It appears that after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has found that the petitioner has himself admitted in his show-cause that his earning is Rs.5000/- per month and his evidence that he is earning Rs. 2000/- is of no value. The petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to his wife and Rs.500/- to his minor son per month as maintenance. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)