IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.845 of 2011 Md. Taha S/o Md. Yasin, R/o village- Wazidpur PS.- Barsoai, District- Katihar---------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Tammana Khatoon D/o Md. Taha 3. Nikhat Bano W/o Md. Taha, R/o village- wazidpur PS- Barsoai, District- Katihar-------------Opposite parties. ---------------------------------- 2 15.12.2011 This application has been filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 23.4.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in Maintenance Case No. 71 of 2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/-to Tammana Khatoon, 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 Tammana Khatoon is not the daughter of the petitioner and as she is not entitled to get maintenance from him and secondly he has no means to pay the amount of maintenance. Learned counsel for the State submits that learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has come to the conclusion that Tammana Khatoon is the daughter of the petitioner from his wife and he has means to pay the amount of maintenance. After hearing of learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. The Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and 2 after considering their evidence the impugned order has been passed. In view of above I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The amount of maintenance is not excessive. This petition is dismissed. RPS ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)