IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28808 of 2009 LAL MOHAMMAD, SON OF PUTALI MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SEVRAI, P.S.- GAHAMAR, DISTRICT- GAJIPUR (U.P.) ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAMLA DEVI, WIFE OF LAL MOHAMMAD, (FATHER’S NAME NOT GIVEN), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SOWAN, P.S.- KRISHNA BRAHM, DISTRICT- BUXAR. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 28.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.3.2009 by which the petitioner was granted bail with the condition that he should pay Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be his wife. The contention of the petitioner is that such a condition is unreasonable on the ground that the lady could only have been granted maintenance if she had filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not think that the amount granted to the opposite party is excessive or it is unreasonable. It is also contended that the opposite party no. 2 is not the legally wedded wife because the petitioner was earlier married and he already has children from his first wife whereas the Court while granting 2 bail has observed that the lady concerned was married to the petitioner and that she also has child out of the wedlock. Considering all these aspects, I do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the order. This application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)