IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.177 of 2009 MD.DILSHAD @ MD.DILSHAD AHMAD S/O MD. MUSA --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHABNAM PRAVEEN D/O MD. ATABUL RAHMAN --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.Z. Qumar, Advocate. For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 23.09.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner is the husband. He is aggrieved by order dated 18.11.2008, passed in maintenance case no. 14 of 2008 whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura, on a consideration of the materials on record found that the petitioner is obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) per month to the applicant/wife from the date of filing of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the same was passed ex parte. It is also contended that the husband/petitioner had taken a plea that he had already divorced the applicant/wife. From the impugned order, it appears that on notice the petitioner had appeared and filed show cause but thereafter evaded appearance inasmuch as no witness was adduced on behalf of the husband/petitioner. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the husband/petitioner has not till today filed any application in the Court below for setting aside/recall of the alleged ex parte order. In that view of the matter, the first contention of the petitioner seems to be misconceived. The impugned order has also been assailed on the ground that the husband/petitioner put up a case of divorce. It appears that the plea of divorce was not proved by evidence. Even if, the plea of the petitioner is accepted, in my view, the same shall not exonerate him of his liability to pay the maintenance amount to the applicant/wife till she is re-married. This Court does not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)