IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1081 of 2009 Mumtaj Khan, son of Chhedi Khan @ Abdul Rashid, resident of village-Shekh Dhanwat, P.S.-Sareya O.P., District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Tabassum Khatoon, wife of Mumtaj Khan, D/o Mahmud Khan, resident of village- Shekh Dhanpat, P.S.- Sareya O.P., District- Muzaffarpur presently residing at Naya Tola Samadpura, P.S.-Mehsi, District- East Champaran. ----------- 3. 28.07.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No.306/2008 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1800/-per month as maintenance to his wife, opposite party no.2 Tabassum Khatoon and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-as litigation cost. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears that the opposite party no.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance against her husband, the petitioner. Earlier, she has also filed a Maintenance Case No.53/2008, which was disposed of in terms of the compromise. She was leading her conjugal life. Lastly, on 16.03.2007, she was ousted from 2 her Sasural and the petitioner is not willing to keep and maintain her. The petitioner has two bighas of land and he is doing business from which he earns Rs.20,000/-per month. The petitioner appeared and filed his show-cause on 12.02.2009. Thereafter, he filed another petition to recall the ex-parte hearing. The said petition has not pressed and the petitioner left doing proper Pairvi. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party is living in adultery and as such, she does not want to live with him and, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State submits that on the basis of materials on record, the impugned order has been passed. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order by this Court. After hearing learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no.2, who has filed maintenance case no.53/08, which was dismissed as not pressed. Later on, she filed the Maintenance Case No.306/2008. After notice, 3 opposite party (petitioner) has appeared and filed his show- cause, but he has left his Pairvi in this case. The learned Magistrate has examined the witnesses produced on behalf of wife, opposite party no.2 from which, it appears that the petitioner is in government service and he earns Rs.15,000 to Rs.20000/-per month as salary and opposite party has no means for her livelihood, whereas, her husband, petitioner has sufficient means to pay her maintenance. After considering all these facts, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1800/-per month as maintenance. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)