IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.649 of 2007 BRAJESH KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4 11.9.2008 This revision application has been filed against the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in M.R.No. 5 of 2005 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to opposite party no.2 at the rate of Rs.2000/0- (Two thousand) per month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party. The admitted fact is that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She is living separately from the petitioner. The petitioner is not maintaining her. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has wrongly passed ex parte order. The petitioner has actually filed written statement but the same has not been considered. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a petition on 15.1.2007 for recall of ex parte order but no order was passed thereon. Lastly it is submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed person and is not in a position to pay such a huge amount of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that it is true that on 15.1.2007 a petition for recall of ex parte order was filed but on the very next date the petitioner filed another petition for transfer of the case. He did not press the petition - 2 - filed for recall the ex parte order. Opportunity was also given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. It is further submitted that these petitions were filed in the court below just in order to delay the disposal of maintenance case and to avoid the payment of maintenance. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as entire records. In appears that on 15.1.2007 the petitioner filed a petition for recall of ex parte order and on the very next date he filed another petition for transferring the case to Muzaffarpur. Opportunity was also given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses but he did not cross examine them. Thereafter an ex parte order was passed in the case. So far the capacity of the petitioner is concerned, on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner is running business of general store and has agency of cold drink besides the income of agricultural land and market complex. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 30.3.2007 under revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance as directed by the court below. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)