IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.538 of 2010 Sk. Abdullah, S/O Late Md.Afjal, R/O Vill.-Verihari(Sagarua), P.S.-Purshottampur, Dist.-West Champaran. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Namsun Nisha @ Babri Khatoon, D/O Sk.Md.Gani, R/O Vill.-Parsa,P.S.-Sikta,Dist.-West Champaran. ……..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 08.12.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 5.03.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bettiah, West Champaran in Maintenance Case No.38/2002/54/2005 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-per month to his wife, opposite party no.2. Heard Mr. Rashid Izhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Rabindra Kumar, the learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has given Talak to his wife on 29.04.2002 and secondly, he has no means to give the amount of maintenance to the opposite party no.2. 2 It appears from the impugned order that the plea of divorce has already been taken by the petitioner in his show-cause dated 8.01.2007, but he has not adduced any evidence in support of his contention, whereas the opposite party no.2 has adduced evidence and has examined four witnesses in support of her case. Even a divorcee is entitled to get maintenance for her maintenance unless and until she is re-married. It further appears that the learned Court has considered the evidence and other materials on the record and passed the impugned order. The amount of maintenance is not excessive. 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.)