IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.967 of 2009 Aquil Khan @ Md. Aquil Khan son of Yaquob Khan, Resident of village Banpur, Police Station Khaira, District Jamui. Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Farha Khan D/O Rashid Khan, resident of village Banpur, Police Station Khaira, District Jamui. ----------- 3 12.07.2011 The husband Opposite Party-Petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 12th May, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court in Maintenance Case No. 15( M) of 2007 by which he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance to his wife petitioner-Opposite Party No. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. A petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C was filed by the petitioner Opposite Party. 2 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 15 ( M) of 2007 stating therein that she is the wife of the petitioner. After the marriage he went to the house of the husband and started conjugal life with him. He and the members of his family demanded Rs. 1 lac as dowry and for the non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry she was tortured by them and ultimately she was ousted from his house. She filed a case under Section 498A I.P.C and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and members of the family which is still pending. The petitioner Opposite Party No. 2 has been neglected by the petitioner and she has no means for her livelihood whereas, the 2 petitioner has sufficient income from the landed property and he earns Rs. 50, 000 (fifty thousand) per annum and he also earns Rs. 20,000/-. from other sources. The petitioner appeared in that maintenance case and contested the case on the ground that after the Nikah no cohabitation has been established by him with the Opposite Party No. 2 and she has not been treating the petitioner as her husband she has been divorced by the petitioner on 17.3.2006. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence and on contest the impugned order has been passed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that marriage could not be consummated and ultimately the petitioner divorced the Opposite Party on 17.03.2006, He has no landed property. The petitioner has divorced the Opp. Party No. 2 as such the provisions under Section 125 Cr. P.C is not applicable against him. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party was submitted that these points have been raised before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Both the parties have led their evidence in support of their case and the matter has been contested by both the parties. It has been further submitted that after hearing both the parties and on perusal of material on record the learned Court has found that the Opposite Party No. 2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she has not been divorced, she has no means of livelihood, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient income, but he has refused to give maintenance to his wife Opposite Party No. 2. It has 3 been further submitted that at the relevant time petitioner was the student of IIT Kanpur and he was getting a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as scholarship and now the petitioner has got regular employment and he earns Rs. 12 lac per annum. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Principal Judge has given finding on each and every point raised by both the parties who had led their evidence in support of their case. After considering the evidence advanced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Court has come to conclusion that the Opposite Party No. 2 has no means to support herself and she requires maintenance, whereas, petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife but she has been neglected and maintenance has been denied to her by the petitioner. The learned Court has also come to the finding that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he has divorced his wife. Considering the facts and circumstances and material on record I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)