IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.337 of 2006 ABHINANDAN YADAV ...... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND 2. SHOBHA DEVI ...... Opposite Parties ----------- 8. 6.11.2008. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27th October,2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No.106 of 2003 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the opposite party no.2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no income to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2. The petitioner has to maintain apart from himself the second wife and four children from the second wife. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the amount of maintenance granted by the court below is not even sufficient to maintain the opposite party no.2. - 2 - N.H./ Considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the impugned order. On perusal of paragraph- 12 of the impugned order, it is quite apparent that apart from cultivation, the petitioner has no other income. The petitioner has to maintain his second wife and her children also. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month instead of Rs.1,000/- per month as directed by the court below. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed with above modification in the quantum of maintenance. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )