IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1080 of 2009 Md.Shakoor S/o Md. Dukho Resident of village-Rampur, Police Station-Hasanpur, District-Samastipur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Anwari Khatoon W/o Md. Shakoor D/O Md. Yunus. 3. Khushbu Minor D/o Anwari Khatoon. 4. Rakeeb, Minor S/o Anwari Khatoon. All resident of village-Rampur Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur ----------- 3 27.07.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Maintenance Case No. 65 of 2007, by which petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance for his wife and two minor children. Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma No. 1, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no document showing income of the petitioner has been filed before the Family Court. The petitioner is employed in a cycle repairing shop and gets Rs. 1400 to 1500/- per month. and is not eligible to pay the maintenance allowance as directed by the Family Court. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2, Anwari Khatoon has been divorced by the petitioner and she is not entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties 2 and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 is admitted. The petitioner has claimed that he has divorced his wife which has denied by his wife-Opposite Party No. 2. It further appears from the evidence adduced on behalf of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself and the two minor children whereas, the income of the petitioner is Rs. 15000 to 20000 per month. It appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month for three persons i.e., for his wife and two minor children. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result this petition is dismissed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. )