IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1425 of 2010 Sarju Prasad, son of Sri Hari Prasad, resident of village-Naudiha, P.O.-Bilashpur, P.S.-Haider Nagar, District-Palamu, presently residing at Sector-8 (Near Gayatri Mandir) Obra, P.S.-Obra, District-Sonbhadra (U.P.) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Sarita Devi, D/o Sri Mushi Prasad, wife of Sarju Prasad, resident of village-Ordih, P.S.-Kutumba, District- Aurangabad. ----------- 6. 17.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Misc. Case No.24/95 by which the quantum of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.3000/-per month. The wife of the petitioner filed Maintenance Case No.24/95 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance. The learned Magistrate passed the order dated 16.06.1997 allowing Rs.300/-per month for the maintenance of the wife and son of the petitioner. In due course, the case was transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court on 9.05.2007. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed petition dated 17.02.2009 for enhancement of the maintenance and the amount of maintenance has been 2 enhanced to Rs.3000/-per month vide impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the impugned order is allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury and loss. The petitioner has no means to pay the amount. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the petitioner has not care his wife and son. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner for contesting the case. The amount of maintenance has been granted to opposite party no.2 for maintenance of herself and her son. The amount of maintenance has not been paid to the opposite party and as such, opposite party no.2 and her son are facing starvations. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the notice was issued to the petitioner and even after receiving the notice; the petitioner did not appear in the maintenance case and did not file any reply. In the maintenance case, the opposite party no.2 has filed a supplementary affidavit on 4.12.2009 stating therein that the petitioner is getting Rs.18,000/-as rent and Rs.1000/-per 3 day from the shop. He has also 14 Bighas of land from which he earns Rs.2-3 lacs per annum. The opposite party no.2 has made request for direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.5-6000/-per month as maintenance. By filing supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has annexed a certificate (Annexure-3) granted by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Obra in the District of Sonbhandra (U.P.) stating therein that according to his knowledge, the petitioner has no immovable property nor has any shop in his name. He maintains himself as a labour. This fact cannot be considered at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this application is dismissed. I.A.No.1959 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)