IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.236 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR BHAGAT Versus SAROJ DEVI ----------- 2 19.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order granting maintenance of Rs 400/- per month under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the factum of marriage having been not admitted the court below committed error apparent on the face of the record in granting maintenance to the opposite party. The court below in this context has examined contents of the divorce suit filed by the petitioner against the opposite party and from its perusal it come to a finding that the petitioner has made a definite statement that he was married with Saroj Devi- opposite party to whom he has also described in the divorce suit to be his wife. Such statement of the petitioner in course of verification in the same divorce suit has been said to be true to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner. It is therefore, very difficult to this court to now allow the petitioner to resile from this situation by taking a plea - 2 - that the marriage is not admitted because father of the petitioner had filed a case with regard to kidnapping of the petitioner and forcible marriage. The statement of the petitioner would definitely be preferred other than any person. The petitioner has himself taken a plea in the divorce suit that he was married with Saroj Devi the opposite party and for dissolution of that marriage he has filed divorce suit. The factum of the marriage is thus admitted and has been accordingly recorded by the court below in the impugned order. The quantum of Rs 400/- per month by of maintenance can not be said to either excessive or illegal even if the plea of the petitioner was taken into consideration that he is unemployed and in fact student of only B.A. Part II. It has never been alleged by the petitioner that his family has no means or resources, for paying a sum of Rs 400/- per month to the wife-opposite party. That being the position, this Court finds no substance in either of the aforementioned only two submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner - 3 - while assailing the impugned order for grant of maintenance of Rs 400/ per month. There being thus no merit in this civil revision application, the same is hereby dismissed. shahid (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)