IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.987 of 2008 JAVED AKHATTAR, Son of Md. Faryad Hussain, resident of Village- Kateya,P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj................................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Jaharun Nesha, daughter of Aliraj Ali, resident of Village- Mushahari, P.S. Vijayyeepur, District-Gopalganj........Opposite Parties. ----------- 09. 29.10.2009. No body appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present to state the case of the opposite party no.2 supporting the grounds which have been taken to allow the maintenance petition. In brief, it is said that opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of the petitioner-husband. The marriage was solemnised on 31.12.2000. The husband has been stated drunkard in habit to assault opposite party no.2 and it is specifically said that he driven away the wife after assault. There is mention about income of the husband which is followed by 10 Bighas of land, having income of Rs.500/- per day. On service of notice, husband-petitioner has filed his show cause on different grounds including maintainability, refusing all the allegations about assault with her. His specific case is of desertion by the wife and his inability to maintenance. Further his willingness to keep the wife with all dignity in the trial court has also asserted. Occasionally, as submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that he appeared in course of trial. Only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the opposite party no.2 who also have not fully cross- 2 examined on petitioner’s behalf. As submitted considering the statement of witnesses, in corroboration of the assertions made in the petition, maintenance is allowed by passing the impugned order suffers with no infirmity even to admit the revision petition. I have gone through the grounds taken in the revision petition i.e., to the effect that the order is cryptic. For opposite party no.2, it is said that she is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. At the same time, it is said that the petitioner has divorced her. Lastly, it is said that the petitioner-husband is not competent to pay Rs. 1200/- per month. All the materials have been discussed in the impugned order. So, it can not be said that the impugned order is cryptic. At the one place it is said that she was not legally wedded wife and on the other place divorce is asserted which needs no further evidence to accept the opposite party no.2 as wife of petitioner and income asserted by the witness have only been consideration by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, so I find no illegality at all even to admit this revision petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed at this stage of admission. U.K. (Mandhata Singh,J)