IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.389 of 2008 MD.ARMAN S/O LATE ALLAUDDIN --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAZIA BEGUM @ NAGIS --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Ram Kishun Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Paremeshwar Mehta,APP For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh Sr. Advocate. ----------- 03 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite parties. Present application has been filed by the husband calling in question the sustainability of the order dated 01.03.2008, passed in Matrimonial case no. 51 of 2005 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bettiah, West Champaran. By the said order learned Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record directed for payment of a sum of Rs. 1000/- ( one thousand) as maintenance amount to the wife/applicant w.e.f. March, 2008. Opposite party no.2 made an application seeking maintenance on the ground that neither she nor her son was being maintained by the husband. The said claim was resisted by the husband on the plea that wife was leading an adulterous life. It was also the contention of the husband/ petitioner that he had already divorced by uttering the word ‘Talak’ on three occasions and certain amount was paid for the iddat period. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the contrary, submits that the findings are adverse to the husband/petitioner. Learned trial Court, on perusal of the materials placed on record, has found that the applicant/wife was not having any extra marital relationship with her cousin brother and she had not remarried anyone. It is also seen that learned trial Court has not found any substance in the submission of the husband that he had already divorced the applicant/ opposite party no.2. Relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan since reported in 2010(1) SCC 666, it is contended that even if she has been found to have been divorced opposite party no.2 will be entitled to maintenance until she remarries. . I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It appears that the applicant/wife had made the claim for herself as well as for her minor son. Learned trial Court has found that the husband refused to maintain them. The claim of the husband that he had divorced the lady/applicant has not been found substantiated at the said suit. Definitely there is no dispute that the son, in all eventualities, has to be maintained by the husband. In absence of any finding recorded by the Court below that the lady has since remarried this Court finds that in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Shabana Bano (supra) the petitioner is bound to pay the subsistence allowance. Learned trial Court has taken all precaution in granting the said relief with effect from the month in which the said order was passed. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)