IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.475 of 2011 Gopal Mishra @ Bhola Mishra, son of Late Ramyad Mishra, resident of Mursand, Via, Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt. Samastipur. ---------Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Purnima, wife of Late Pankaj Kumar Mishra, resident of Mursand, Via Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt. Samastipur. 3. Sakchi Anand, daughter of Late Pankaj Kumar Mishra, through her mother Purnima, resident of Munsand, Via Pusa, Distt. Samastipur. --------- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 4. 04.11.2011 This Revision Application has been preferred under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act against the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur, in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 2010 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the maintenance of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. The Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for their maintenance and the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 (Purnima Devi) is that she was married to Pankaj Kumar Mishra, son of Gopal Mishra @ Bhola Mishra (petitioner) and out of their wedlock a daughter namely Sakchi Anand was born. Pankaj Kumar Mishra died on 31.7.2009 and thereafter, she started residing at her father’s house with her daughter. Both of them have no means to maintain themselves. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2 and he is having four Bighas of land and getting Rs. 5,00,000/- annually but, does not pay any maintenance to 2 them. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is not the husband or father of the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 and as such, they are not entitled to get any maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. He has submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by this Court, the petitioner was paying Rs. 1,000/- for their maintenance but Opposite Party No. 2, the wife of late Pankaj Kumar Mishra, son of the petitioner, has transferred the land as mentioned in Annexure-3 of the I.A. No. 1907 of 2011 for a consideration of money as mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed. The Opposite Party No. 2 has already appeared through Vakalatnama but no one appears on her behalf. The Opposite Party No. 3 is the minor daughter of Opposite Party No. 2 and she is under her guardianship. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, it appears that it is admitted fact that the petitioner is the father-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2 who had filed petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for the maintenance of herself and her minor daughter (Opposite Party No. 3). From plain reading of the Provision of Section 125 Cr. P.C., the petitioner is not liable to maintain the Opposite 3 parties. According to this Provision, the father-in-law is not liable to maintain his daughter-in-law or his grand child. From the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. This Revision Application is allowed. S.Ali ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)