IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1244 of 2009 Md. Mumtazuddin, son of Late Md. Aziz @ Bhagloo, resident of Mohalla- Kandi, P.S.-Chandauti, District- Gaya. …..Petitioner Versus 1. Akbari Khatoon, D/o Abdul Baho, resident of Mohalla- Sadisopur, P.S.-Bihta, District- Patna. 2. The State of Bihar. ……Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 15.09.2011 The husband-petitioner has been preferred this revision application against the order dated 26.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No.41(M)/2005 by which he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-per month to the wife opposite party no.1 as ad interim maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has two wives and he is a fourth grade employee and earning simply Rs.7000/-per month. He has further submitted that from the first wife, he has children and he has to maintain his first wife and the children. He has further submitted that the opposite party no.1 has been divorced by the petitioner. Therefore, the maintenance case is not maintainable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2 The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get the benefit under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the petitioner that his wife-opposite party no.1 Akbari Khatoon has re- married after she has been divorced. She is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so long she does not re-marry. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, it appears that it is admitted fact that opposite party no.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. The plea of divorce has been taken in his show-cause for the first time. It is not the case of the petitioner that his wife opposite party no.1 has remarried. The claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabana Bano Vs. Imran Khan in Cr. Appeal No.2309/09 vide judgment dated 4.12.2009. It further appears from the impugned order that the amount of the maintenance of Rs.1000/- has been passed as ad-interim maintenance. The main case is still pending before the Family Court. It has been held that the petitioner is a fourth grade employee in the Electricity Department and his earning is not less than 3 Rs.7000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievance before the learned Principal Judge where the main maintenance case is pending. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)