IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1083 of 2009 Surendra Bind @ Jamadar son of late Barat Bind resident of village Bishuni Bagaicha, P.s. Khudaganj, District- Nalanda. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Jitani Devi wife of Surendra Bind, resident of village- Bishuni Bagaicha, P.S. Khudaganj, District- Nalanda. … Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 19.07.2011 This application has been preferred against the order dated 27.3.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Maintenance Case No. 10(M) of 2008 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month for maintenance of his wife and minor daughter, Basanti Kumari till her attaining the age of majority. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no document to show that the petitioner has eight bigahas of land and secondly his wife, Jitani Devi is leading adulterous life, as such she should not have been granted any amount of maintenance. It has further been contended that the petitioner has not been examined by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. It appears that marriage between 2 petitioner and opposite party no. 2 is admitted. It is also admitted that out of said wedlock, opposite party no. 2 gave birth of a female child, Basanti Kumari. It has been alleged that after birth of daughter, the petitioner started atrocities on his wife, opposite party no. 2. The petitioner also remarried with one Sarswati Devi and after that marriage he had stopped the maintenance of opposite party no. 2 and her minor daughter. It has further been alleged that on 10.8.2007, the petitioner and his second wife brutally assaulted opposite party no. 2 and her daughter and ousted them from his house. Opposite party no. 2 has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. It appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. The petitioner has failed to show that he has been debarred and refused from giving his own evidence. A. W. 2, Jitani Devi (opposite party no. 2) has stated that she has no means of livelihood whereas the petitioner has eight bigahas of land earning 70,000/- per annum. The petitioner has also the business of milk and centering work earning 3 handsome amount. In her cross-examination, it has been suggested that the petitioner has only two bigahas of land. It appears that learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.750/- per month to his wife, opposite party no. 2 for her maintenance and Rs.750/- per month to his minor daughter, Basanti Kumari for her maintenance till attaining the age of majority. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)