IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.879 of 2009 Tanweer, son of Yakub, resident of village-Bardh Samial, P.S.-Keoti, District-Darbhanga. Versus Nazra Khatoon , D/o Wahidul at present village-Chhatwan, P.S.-Keoti, District- Darbhanga. ----------- 6. 19.07.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment/order dated 2.09.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Maintenance Case No.62/2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/-per month as maintenance to his wife, opposite party and also Rs.2000/- as litigation cost. Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not husband of the opposite party and as such, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The petitioner has also filed a Matrimonial Case No.16/08 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga for declaration as to whether the petitioner is the husband of opposite party. It appears that opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance against her husband, the petitioner. It further appears that opposite 2 party was married to the petitioner on 3.01.2007. Thereafter, she was ousted from the house on 16.03.2007 and she had been living at her Naihar. She has no source of her maintenance and the petitioner having sufficient source of income. He is earning Rs.1000/-per month from the business of Jari and from the landed property, he used to earn Rs.40,000/-per year. The total income of petitioner is Rs.13000/-per month. The petitioner has been neglecting by the opposite party. It further appears from the impugned judgment that the petitioner has denied the marriage. It further appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has considered the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced on behalf of both the parties and has come to the finding that the petitioner is earning Rs.2500/- per month and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/-per month as maintenance to his wife, opposite party. In the facts and circumstance stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Rejection of this petition will not prejudice the case of the either parties. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)