IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.464 of 2008 MOTIUR RAHMAN Versus SARWARI KHATOON ----------- 2 15.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, when the petitioner had married for the second time, he could not have forced his first wife, the opposite party to live with him and because that by itself may be a good ground for her to not stay with the petitioner. That being so, this Court would not find any error in that part of the order where it has been held that the petitioner is bound to maintain his wife and pay the amount for such maintenance. The second submission that the wife cannot claim maintenance because he does not have an income is by itself not only contradictory in its own term by the behavior of the petitioner who can afford to get married twice and yet choose to refuse to maintain one of his wife on the ground of paucity of means/income. The findings of the Court below that the petitioner has income of Rs. 120-125/- per day is based on amongst other materials, the evidence of his own witness, Bhikhari Sah. That being so, this Court would not find a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to be either excessive or illegal. 2 Accordingly, this civil revision application, being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay the amount both arrear and current amount as directed in the impugned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)