IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1093 of 2009 Ramdev Ram, son of Late Takari Ram, resident of village- Bahuarwa, P.S.-Palanwa, District- East Champaran. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Punam Devi, wife of Ramdeo Ram, daughter of Shiv Pujan Ram, resident of village- Murwa, P.S.-Palanwa, District- East Champaran. ……..Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 5. 01.12.2011 This revision application has been preferred under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 6.02.2001 and 12.01.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Maintenance Case No.58/2008. Vide order dated 12.01.2009, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-per month for the maintenance of his wife and his minor daughter. Vide order dated 6.02.2009, the petitioner has been directed to comply the aforesaid order dated 12.01.2009. If after hearing amount of maintenance will be felt to be excessive, then excess amount paid will be ordered to be adjusted against maintenance to be paid further. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2 It appears that the opposite party no.2 filed Maintenance Case No.58/2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even after the service of notice, the petitioner did not appear and finding no alternative, case was proceeded ex-parte against him. Thereafter, witnesses have been examined on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and after considering their evidence, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-per month for the maintenance of his wife and her minor daughter vide order dated 12.01.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Principal Judge to recall the ex-parte order dated 12.01.2009 and to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to comply the direction given to him vide order dated 12.01.2009 and if after the hearing the amount of maintenance will be felt to be excessive ordered to be adjusted against the maintenance to be paid further. It further appears that it is still open to the petitioner to approach the Principal Judge in pursuance to order dated 6.02.2009. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)