IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1510 of 2009 Jagdish Mahto, son of Late Munni Mahto, resident of Sripur Gahar, P.S.-Khanpur, District- Samastipur. ………..Petitioner Versus Jamuni Devi, wife of Jagdish Mahto, resident of Sripur Gahar, P.S.-Khanpur, District- Samastipur. …..Opposite Party ----------- 2. 09.11.2011 This revision application has been preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 23.07.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur in Misc. Case No.154/2004/328/2005 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/-per month to his wife, opposite party for her maintenance. The opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife. Out of that marriage, two children were born. Out of them, a girl child died and a son Pradeep Mahto is still alive. The petitioner has solemnized another marriage with Kabutari Devi and he is also having seven children from her. The petitioner is not maintaining her and has ousted her after the second marriage. The petitioner has 2 Bighas of land and he is 2 engaged in Toddy business and has income of Rs.8000- 10,000/-per month. The case of the petitioner is that opposite party is his wife, but she has deserted the petitioner and has performed another marriage with Jagdish Mahto and two children were born to her from Jagdish Mahto. The petitioner has disowned the claim that Jamuni Devi (opposite party) is his wife and she has got two children from him. The second husband of Jamuni Devi died. Thereafter, she has again claimed to be the wife of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has claimed maintenance after a long time i.e. more than two decades. The opposite party has failed to produce her son Pradeep Mahto in support of her claim purposely. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party was the wife of the petitioner and there is no proof of her other husband. After considering 3 the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge has come to the conclusion that the opposite party is the first wife of the petitioner and she still continued to be the first wife as no proof has been given for her divorce by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.750/- per month to his wife, opposite party as maintenance, which is a meagre amount for the maintenance. 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.)