IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1407 of 2011 Sujit Kumar Mishra @ Babloo Kumar Mishra son of Shri Braj Kishroe Mishra, R/o village Harpuer, P.s.Shikarpur, Dist.West Champaran ……………………….Petitioner Versus Mala Devi D/o Sri Subhash Chandra Mishra, R/o village Badago, P.O. Badago (Deoraj) P.S.Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran …………………….Opposite Party. ----------------- 3 14.12.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in Maintenance case no. 42 of 2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month to his wife opposite party as maintenance allowance. The fist submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was already married to Shahina Naj Parveen @ Puja Mishra on 17.02.2007 and has been residing with her in a rented house. The marriage was also registered. The family members of the petitioner forcibly solemnized his marriage with O.P. at the gun point. The second submission of the petitioner is that he is not in a position to give the amount of maintenance as he has been dismissed from his service as a teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since he was already married the opposite party, the second wife is not entitled to get any maintenance. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in the case of Vimala (K) Vs. Veeraswamy (K) (1991)2 SCC 375. In that case the plea of the husband was that the marriage was vague due to sustenance of the earlier marriage. In that case also the husband has failed to 2 prove that that there was marriage earlier. In the present case also the petitioner has failed to prove that he was married earlier and he was married to the O.P. forcibly at the second time. This decision does not help the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has filed his show cause thereafter he did not turn up in the case and finding no way out the court proceeded for ex-parte hearing. The wife O.P. has led her evidence in support of the claim about the marriage and the source of income. According to the witness the entire amount of income is Rs. 5,30,000/- per annum. No witness has been examined on behalf of the petitioner. It has been held by the learned Principal Judge that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and he has fully neglected her. Considering the income of the petitioner, the learned court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)