IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.720 of 2009 RAGHUBAR RAM …petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Basudeo Mochi ..opposite parties For the petitioner :Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh For the State :Mr. Ram Chandra Singh,APP ----------- 02. 20.12.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the son of the applicant-father (o.p.no.2). He is aggrieved by order dated 22.01.2009, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, whereby on a consideration of materials brought on record by the parties, it was found that the applicant-father was not able to maintain himself and the son was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month for his maintenance. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. From the materials on records this much is evident that the father was employed in a colliery under BCCL. He was declared unfit in the year 1992 and on his volition the son (petitioner) was employed in colliery on an undertaking that he would maintain his parent. Paragraph 10 of the impugned order reads as under: “Evidence present on the record goes to show that o.p. is the son of the applicant. At present applicant is aged about 75 years. According to him his wife is also very old. Naturally, o.p. is bound to maintain his parents who are now old and unable to maintain themselves. According to o.p. his monthly salary is Rs. 7000/- per month. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the o.p is hereby directed to give Rs.1000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance 2 allowance. This maintenance allowance has to be given by the o.p. to the applicant in the first week of every month failing which legal steps will be taken against o.p. for recovery of the dues. This order will come into force from today.” Considering the materials on record including the findings of learned court below recorded in the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality in the order meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )