IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.312 of 2008 Harilal Das son of Mohan Das, resident of village Gaddupur, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Ch-amparan. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Savitri Devi wife of Harilal Das, resident of Village Gaddupur, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran at present daughter of late Bhikham Das of village Shyampur, P.S. Sangrampur, District East Champaran. …. Opposite parties. ----------- 5. 22.07.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 26.3.2007 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 345 of 2005, by which the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.4000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife, opposite party no. 2 and for two children. The order has been passed ex parte. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 7, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even after valid service of notice. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working in Assam and no proper notice was served on him. His further 2 contention is that out of two children born out from the wedlock of opposite party no. 2, the son is living with him and another daughter who is living with her mother has attained the age of marriage and he has also to marry her. The petitioner is unable to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month. He has further contended that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with opposite party no. 2 and the case may be remanded so that the petitioner may contest. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is husband of opposite party no. 2 and two children have also been admitted. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that out of two children, the son born out from the wedlock of opposite party no. 2 is living with the petitioner, cannot be decided at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is better to remand the case before learned Principal Judge, Family Court where the petitioner will also get opportunity to lead his evidence. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to 3 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari. It further appears from the record of this case that vide order dated 7.4.2009, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month in total towards the maintenance of opposite party no. 2 and her children till final hearing of this revision petition. The said order has been passed more than two years ago and due to inflation it is necessary to enhance that amount. Therefore, now the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month from the month of July 2011 till the disposal of maintenance case no. 345 of 2005. Both the parties as well as learned court below will take steps for early disposal of this case. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)