IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1547 of 2009 Vishwa Nath Mahto son of Amar Mahto, resident of village- Madhubani, P.S. Sangrampur, District- East Champaran. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sabita Devi wife of Shivnath Mahto, D/o Basdeo Mahto, resident of village- Madhubani, P.S.- Sangrampur,District- Motihari. … Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 11.11.2011 This revision application has been preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 22.6.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 47 of 2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to opposite party no. 2 for her maintenance. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the husband of opposite party no. 2 and as such he is not liable to pay the amount of maintenance to opposite party no. 2. The second contention is that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that notice was given to the 2 petitioner but he did not appear and contest the case and finding no alternative the case was proceeded ex-parte. Opposite party no. 2 has adduced evidences and after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of opposite party no. 2 it has been found that the petitioner has deserted his wife (opposite party no.2) and has married to another lady. Opposite party no. 2 has no sufficient means to maintain herself, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain opposite party no. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)