IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.189 of 2007 RANJEET SAH Versus GIRJA DEVI ----------- 5. 1.9.2008. This application has been filed against the order dated 16.1.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bettiah west Champaran in Case No. 43M/99 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- each per month i.e. Rs.1000/- in total to opposite parties. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She is actually his ‘Bhabhi’. However, on perusal of paragraph 4 of the order in question it appears that in course of the enquiry not only the opposite party but also her son shardanand Kumar deposed before the Court claiming the petitioner as husband and father respectively. Apart from that barber, priest, father and mother all deposed in favour of opposite party. Paragraph 5 of the order in - 2 - question would go to show that in course of enquiry opposite party filed documents in support of the claim like immunization card dated 21.10.1995 and sale deed dated 22.1.2004 showing the opposite party no.1 as wife of this petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that there is no merit in this application. The quantum of maintenance amount is also reasonable and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)