IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.415 of 2008 ---- Srikant Mishra, Son of Sri Banke Bihari Mishra, resident of village- Singha, P.O.- Semaravia Hathwa, P.S. Mirganj, District-Gopalganj. - Applicant- Appellant- Petitioner Versus Smt. Seema Devi W/o Srikant Mishra and daughter of Sri Arya Tiwari, resident of village Nayagaon, Tulasia P.S. Mirganj, P.O. Hathwa, District-Gopalganj. - Opposite Party-respondent- Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the opposite party : Mr. Baliram Dwivedi, Advocate. ---- 05. 10.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner, who was opposite party in Miscellaneous Case No.62 of 1997, and is aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2007 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj allowed the said miscellaneous case filed by the opposite party and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.500.00 per month to the opposite party as maintenance with effect from the date of the said order. 3. The aforesaid miscellaneous case was filed by the opposite party for maintenance from her husband, namely the petitioner, and for other ancillary reliefs. The said case was contested by the petitioner who claimed that the opposite party was not entitled to get the said relief. Thereafter issues were framed, evidences were led and arguments were made on behalf of both the parties on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below on 11.12.2007 allowing the miscellaneous case. - 2 - 4. It has also come into light that the petitioner, namely the husband, had filed Matrimonial Case No.03 of 1994 for a decree of dissolution of marriage with the opposite party and in that case the opposite party also appeared and contested, issues were framed, evidences were led, arguments were made and finally the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj dismissed the divorce case vide his judgment dated 11.12.2007, but in the interest of justice passed a decree for judicial separation after finding that there was long desertion and that the opposite party was a woman. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent from the said facts, which are admitted, that both the parties are husband and wife, that they have got no issue, that they are living separately since several years, that the petitioner is working at Kolkatta and that the opposite party has got no source of income. These facts have also been found by the learned court below in its impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three objections with regard to the impugned order, namely that the petitioner has got no sufficient income, that the opposite party has got sufficient income and that the opposite party is not a full woman. 7. So far the first and second questions are concerned, it is amply proved that the petitioner is working at Kolkatta and in that view of the matter, he being an able bodied person and admittedly being a labourer cannot have any possible difficulty in paying the meager amount of Rs.500.00 to his wife, especially when the - 3 - opposite party is admittedly his wife. Furthermore, there is no material at all to support the claim of the petitioner that the opposite party has got any income from any source, whereas the opposite party has made specific averments that she has been deserted by the petitioner and has no income at all from any source. 8. So far the third question is concerned, it has already been held in the matrimonial case by the learned court after full investigation that the opposite party was a woman and unless the said finding is upset by this court in First Appeal No.14 of 2009 which has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the matrimonial case, the same has to be taken into consideration. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)