IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1740 of 2009 Basdeo Pandit, son of Yogendra Pandit, resident of village- Shitalpur Kamalpur, P.S.-Bidupur, District- Vaishali. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Asha Devi, daughter of Munnilal Pandit, resident of village-Shitalpur, Kamalpur, P.S.-Bidupur, District- Vaishali. ……..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 01.12.2011 This revision application has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 6.08.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishaili at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No.393/2005 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum o f Rs.2000/-per month in terms of the final order dated 22.09.2007 passed in the aforesaid maintenance case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. After passing of the final order on 22.09.2007, a petition was filed in the family court on 8.01.2008 that the opposite party no.2 was not the wife of the petitioner and prayer was made to get the matter inquired by the Circle Officer. Thereafter, an inquiry was given by the learned Principal Judge to the Circle Officer vide order 2 dated 27.05.2008. After inquiry by the Circle Officer, it has been held that the petitioner was married to the opposite party no.2 in June, 1989 and she has been living in her Sasural. Her name is also in the voter list at sl.no.292 as Asha Devi, wife of the petitioner. In the School Leaving Certificate, the father’s name of Rakesh Kumar is mentioned as Basudeo Pandit (petitioner). In the residential certificate also the name of Asha Devi, wife of Basudeo Pandit has been mentioned. It appears that after considering all these facts, it was found that instead of making payment of the amount of maintenance, the petitioner has been lingering the matter and the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.2000/-per month to opposite party no.2 in terms of the final order passed on 22.09.2007. The amount of maintenance is not excessive. The amount of maintenance has been directed to be paid by the petitioner for the maintenance of his wife and her four children. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)