IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23471 of 2006 BIRENDRA YADAV, Son of Rajdeep Yadav, resident of Village – Chikni Tola Jogbani, P.S. – Gamharia, District – Madhepura. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TARA DEVI, Wife of Birendra Yadav 3. INDRAJEET KUMAR, Son of Birendra Kumar, Minor under Legal guardianship of his mother Tara Devi. Both residents of village – Chikni Tola Jogbani, P.S. – Gamharia, District – Madhepura, at present residing at Village – Mohanpur, Post Office – Barahi, P.S. and District – Madhupura. ….. Opp. Parties. ----------- 07/ 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing O.P. No. 2 & 3 and the learned APP for the State. Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2005, which was filed against the order dated 3.3.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2002 by virtue of which the learned Judicial Magistrate directed payment of ad interim maintenance allowance to O.P. No. 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 300/- and 200/- per month respectively by the 3rd of each month. Since the order granting ad interim maintenance did not satisfy the petitioner, he filed a revision which was Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura did not find any illegality in the order and dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he is willing to keep his wife and the child and take care of their welfare, there is no occasion for the court below to pass the order of grant of ad interim maintenance. It is alleged that the O.P. No. 2 has illicit relationship that is why; she is not willing to live with the petitioner. - 2 - With the allegations of such kind being made against the wife, no self respecting woman would agree to live with the petitioner. But, it is another issue which is not before this Court. But looking at the paltry sum, which has been ordered as maintenance amount i.e. Rs.300/- and 200/- respectively, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order. The Court only wants to record that the petitioner has got away very lightly in this matter. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)