IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57540 of 2007 RAM KRISHNA PATHAK, S/O LATE AKSHAYWAR NATH PATHAK .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. INDU DEVI, W/O RAM KRISHNA PATHAK .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /4/ 07.04.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order, dated 27.06.2007, passed by the Family Court, Bhojpur at Arrah, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by which the maintenance of Rs.9000/- per month from the salary to her as well as to her children. The said maintenance has been granted in view of the fact that the petitioner has voluntarily agreed to pay Rs.9000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. However, the petitioner has come forward to challenge this order on the ground that in the petition by which he agreed to pay Rs.9000/- is not Rs.9000/-, but, Rs.1000/- and it has wrongly been mentioned as Rs.9000/-. It has further been contended that the Court has not taken into consideration the reason why the wife is not living with him and still granted maintenance which is not the requirement under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, 2 however, opposed and submits that in the petition of this petitioner he has categorically mentioned that he is ready to pay Rs.9000/- per month and in the petition itself it has been mentioned that he earns Rs.12000/- as salary and Rs.8000/- from agriculture and both of these digit have been mentioned in English, however, with regard to Rs.9000/- the petitioner pleads that it is not in English, but, in Hindi. However, all the numbers in the said petition by which petitioner volunteered to pay has been mentioned in English, but, Rs.9000/- has been mentioned in Hindi, which is, in fact, Rs.1000/-. However, this plea of the petitioner-husband is not at all acceptable that only digit Rs.1000/- in said petition written in Hindi and rest in English. 4. The second point raised that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been complied as there is no reason assigned that why opposite party no. 2 not live with her husband (petitioner). However, in the impugned order itself there is mention that earlier a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been instituted and there was compromise and in pursuance of that compromise the wife along with children come to live with the husband (petitioner) at the place of posting, but, subsequently opposite party no. 2 was assaulted and kicked out of the house by the husband and, hence, this is the reason why 3 opposite party no. 2, the wife, is living separately and is not living with this petitioner, which is itself mentioned in the impugned order, hence, is sufficient compliance of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code why the wife is not living with the petitioner. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition. However, it may be pertinent to mention that there was preliminary objection raised that this criminal miscellaneous case is not maintainable and it ought to have been converted into a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 19(4) of Family Court Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any order passed under Criminal Procedure Code may be challenged under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no merit in submission on both counts. 6. I do not find any merit in this petition and, hence, it is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )