IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1384 of 2007 REZAUL HAQUESON OF SADIRUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKA TOLA, P.S.- ABADPUR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIBI MUNISHA KHATOON, D/O- LATE IRFAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, PAKKATOLA, P.S.- ABADPUR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Helal Ahmad, Advocate. For the State :Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the O.P. : Mr. Rahmatullah, Advocae. ----------- 3 02.08.2010 Heard both sides. By the impugned order, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar has directed for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant wife (O.P. no. 2) and Rs. 500/- per month to the daughter from the date of order. While assailing the sustainability of the order, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that prior to filing of the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., O.P. no. 2 had filed Misc. Case no. 84 of 1991 under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Right and Divorce) Act 1986. It is contended that such an application can only be filed by a lady who has since been divorced . It is thus contended that the present application filed at the instance of O.P. no. 2 was not maintainable. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. no. 2 drew attention of the court to paragraph 8 of the order impugned wherein the evidence of Sheikh Shamim Haque (O.W. 2) has been considered. Sheikh Shamim Haque is said to 2 be the advocate who filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous case no. 84 of 1991. It is admitted position at the Bar that the aforesaid application (Misc. Case no. 84/91) stood dismissed by order dated 20.2.1992 on the ground that the applicant had failed to file any requisites and as such has not shown requisite interest in the case. From his deposition, it has been culled out that Ext. A and A/1 (petition and Vakalatnama of the said case) could not be proved as the said witness categorically admitted that he had not identified the signature/L.T.I. of the applicant (O.P. no. 2) on the said petition and on Vakalatnama. Having regard to the said aspect of the matter, the Court below has not placed any reliance on the aforesaid documents and the stand of the husband (petitioner) anchored thereof. It further appears from the order impugned that the oral evidence and the exhibits placed on record by the parties were evaluated in right perspective whereafter learned court below has come to a conclusion that the applicant wife is not being maintained by the husband who had adequate means to his credit. In that view of the matter, the order impugned was passed. This Court does not find any patent illegality in the order meriting any interference. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )