IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1799 of 2008 NARESH PODDAR Versus CHANDRAMANI DEVI & ANR ----------- 2. 18.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that there is an error on the part of the court below in holding that the opposite party, the wife, had made herself disentitled from receiving the amount of maintenance on account of second marriage is only to be noted for its being rejected. The court below has examined this aspect at a great length and has come to a finding that the evidence in this regard with regard to the alleged second marriage is not reliable. That apart, the previous history of the criminal case between the parties having been taken note of which was the reason for the wife refusing to live with the petitioner husband, at least that cannot be a ground to refuse the amount of maintenance. The amount of Rs.800/- per month for maintenance of the wife and Rs.400/- per month for the child does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Counsel for the petitioner, 2 however, says that since the petitioner is interested in custody of the child, there would be no occasion for the petitioner for making payment of amount of maintenance of his child. This Court however would not like to record any opinion in this regard because once such custody of child is given to the petitioner he will definitely have a remedy under section 127 Cr.P.C. to get the impugned order modified. That being so, this civil revision application, subject to the observations, must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/