IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1149 of 2008 ================================================== Md. Sarfuddin, son of Md. Naimuddin, resident of Mohalla- Manjhaulia, P.S.-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Chaman Ara, daughter of Md. Hadish Khan, wife of Md. Sarfuddin, resident of Mohalla-Manjhaulia, P.S.-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Parties. ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Singh Mr. Arbind Kr.Singh 1 For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey ================================================== 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 judgment and order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No.59/2004 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month for the maintenance of his wife (O.P.No.2) and his minor child. The Opposite Party No.2 filed Maintenance Case Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1149 of 2008 dt.18-10-2011 2 No.69/04 stating therein that on 1.12.1996 she was married to the petitioner. In the marriage, presentation was given to the petitioner on the following day of the marriage she went to her matrimonial house and led the conjugal life happily. Two sons were born out of her wedlock. Demand of cash and motorcycle was made, which was not met by the wife for which she was assaulted and tortured in various manner and she filed a Criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is still pending. In order to save her life, she left the house of the petitioner with her younger son. The elder son is living with the petitioner. The opposite party no.2 has no means to support herself and her minor son, whereas, the petitioner earns Rs.10-15,000/-per month from business and other source, but he does not maintain his wife and the minor son. The case of the petitioner is that it is admitted position that the opposite party no.2 is the wife and has two minor sons. The eldest son lives with him and the younger son lives with his mother (opposite party no.2). The torture and assault have been denied. It has been Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1149 of 2008 dt.18-10-2011 3 claimed that the petitioner is an educated unemployed fully dependent upon pension of the father; even then he is willing to keep his wife. It has been alleged that his wife is a free minded lady and out of control of the petitioner and the members of his family. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in support of their case. After that the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without ascertaining the income of the petitioner, the learned Principal Judge has directed him to pay the amount of maintenance. The petitioner has no source of income and he is unable to pay the amount of maintenance as directed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has also considered that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has income of Rs.10-15000/-from Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1149 of 2008 dt.18-10-2011 4 different source of money, but it has been found that the petitioner is able person capable of working and even in absence of any independent source of income, he can support his wife and minor son who is living with his wife. A report has been called for as to whether the petitioner has been paying the amount of maintenance or not. A report was sent by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur vide letter no.132 dated 9.09.2011 that the petitioner has been paying the amount of maintenance to his wife opposite party no.2 regularly. It is own admission of the petitioner that he is willing to keep his wife with him. From admission of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has means to support his wife and the son. 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 18th October, 2011 NAFR/V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)