IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.982 of 2011 Sk. Irshad Sk.Chhedi Vill.-Mahua Bhusa,P.O.-Lachhanauta, P.S.-Gaunaha, Dist.-West Champaran---Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sabina Khatoon D/O,Sk.Sahab Vill.-Mahua Bhusa,P.O.- Lachhanauta, P.S.-Gaunaha, Dist.-West Champaran--------------- ------------------------------------------------Opp. Parties. ---------------------------------- 2 16.12.2011 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be kept on record. This application has been preferred under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Maintenance Case No. 195 of 2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife opposite party no.2 Sabina Khatoon. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is opposite party no.2 is not the wife of the petitioner and the Nikahnama is forged. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned APP for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that both the parties have led their evidence in support of their cases. The petitioner has failed to disown his signature on the Nikahnama and after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, learned Principal Judge has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no.2. It is also held that the petitioner has means to maintain his wife whereas the opposite party no.2 has no means to support herself and as such no interference with the impugned order is required by this Court. 2 After hearing learned counsel petitioner, learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. Learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and passed the impugned order. The amount of maintenance is also not excessive. Considering the facts and circumstance stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. RPS ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)