IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1070 of 2009 Ravindra Rai, son of Ram Swaroop Rai, resident of village- Majuraha P.S. Turkaulia District East Champaran. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Nirmala Devi w/o Rabindra Rai and D/o Nathuni Rai, resident of Kararia Jagir P.O. Karariya, P.S. Kotwa, Distt. East Champaran. .. Opposite party. ----------- 3. 26.07.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order dated 16.6.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 20 of 2006 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1600/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as her maintenance. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is unable to give the amount of maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and secondly, the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had been given opportunity 2 for adducing the evidence, even thereafter he has not adduced the evidence and as such his evidence was closed. It is admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner and it further appears that the petitioner has also married another lady and from the said wedlock, he has two daughters. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that it is admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2. Due to demand of dowry the opposite party no. 2 was ousted from the matrimonial house on 21.6.2003 and since then she has been living at her Naihar. She has no source of income. The petitioner has fertile land and from which his income is one lakh annually. The petitioner has appeared and filed show cause stating therein that he is ready to keep opposite party no. 2 as his wife but opposite party no. 2 is not willing to live with him. The petitioner is a labourer and he has no landed property. The wife-opposite party no. 2 has adduced evidence and examined four witnesses. Sufficient opportunity was given to the 3 petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his claim but he has not adduced any evidence, lastly his evidence was closed. In course of deposition it has also come to the notice that the petitioner has married another lady, Sunita Devi. It appears that witnesses produced on behalf of the wife, opposite party no. 2 has been cross-examined. A.W. 2 Nathuni Rai, the father of the opposite party no. 2 has also supported her case and has stated that she is living in his house in a pitiable condition whereas the petitioner has ten bigahas of land, pumping set and pacca house and from all sources the petitioner earned one lakh per annum. He has also stated that the petitioner has married to another lady and as such opposite party no. 2 is not wiling to live with the petitioner. A.W. 3, Uma Rai and A.W. 4 Hemraj Rai have also supported the case of the opposite party no. 2. It appears that learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced and passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1600/- per month to opposite party no. 2 for her maintenance who has no source of her livelihood. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality and impropriety of the order. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)