IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.950 of 2007 MEENA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 13.04.2009 The petitioner who is wife of opposite party no. 2, is aggrieved by order dated 18.05.2007 passed in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No. 180 of 2004/101 of 2005, whereby she has been allowed Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) as maintenance. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 is a constable in Police and as such, he is earning about 8,000/- (eight thousand) by way of salary and as such the petitioner is entitled to higher maintenance. Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has filed a counter affidavit annexing order of the Family Court dated 26.09.2008 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 106/07 in which the husband (O. P. 2) had prayed for dissolution of their marriage. The Principal Judge granted decree of divorce. The learned Principle Judge observed that as petitioner is getting a sum of Rs.6,400/- per month, he would pay permanent alimony @ 1,600/- per month at present rate and will be entitled for maintenance with a enhancement of 5% per annum. I find that the learned Family Judge has taken care of maintenance as per the capacity of the petitioner. The petitioner however, submits that opposite party is getting a salary of Rs.8000/- and not 6,400/-. This court would not go into the aforesaid aspect as no material is available on record in respect of the same. The counsel if so advised may take appropriate steps in accordance with law if she - 2 - claims that opposite party no. 2 earned Rs.8,000/- per month, in place of Rs.6,400/-. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)