IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.131 of 2009 Ashok Mishtry, son of late Ganauri Mishtry, resident of village- Singhaul, P.S.- Muffasil Nawada, District- Nawada. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Urmila Devi, wife of Ashok Mishtry, resident of village- Budhaul, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada. ………….Opposite Parties ----------- 6. 21.11.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 27.09.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada in Misc. Case No.11/2004/164/2006 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month for the maintenance of his wife, opposite party no.2 and his minor sons and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to maintain his wife and his two sons, but she is not living with the petitioner. As such, she is not entitled to get the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner has assaulted his wife, the opposite party no.2 for the fulfillment of the demand of 2 dowry and has dragged her out from his house after taking her ornaments and other belonging and she has filed Complaint Case No.446/2000 and the petitioner had to go in jail in that case. The opposite party no.2 has no means to support herself and her two minor sons, who are living with her, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain her and her children. He has also arranged another marriage. As such, the petitioner does not want to live with him. He has further submitted that the amount of maintenance is too meagre. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no.2 and father of two minor sons born out of their wedlock. Both the parties have led their evidence in support of their case. It has been considered by the learned trial court that due to some reasons, the conjugal life between the petitioner and his wife is frustrated and she is living separate with her sons. The wife and minor sons are unable to maintain themselves, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain them. Considering the facts and circumstances, 3 the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- for the maintenance of three persons, wife and two sons, which is not excessive. 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.)