IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.34 of 2009 ---- Ramesh Prasad son of Late Parmeshwar Prasad, resident of village Barka Dhakiachh, P.S.Krishna Braham, District-Buxar. -- Opposite party-Petitioner. Versus Urmila Devi @ Buchi Devi, wife of Ramesh Prasad, presently residing with her father Lallan Prasad of Village- Balua Nargda, Police Station -Krisnhagarh, District-Bhojpur. --Petitioner-Opposite Party. ------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ---- 05. 28.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 08.05.2008 by which this court dismissed Civil Revision No.66 of 2007 by a detailed and considered order. 3. The aforesaid civil revision was filed by the petitioner against order dated 04.11.2006 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara, allowed Misc. Case No.103 of 2002 (145 of 2005) and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000.00 per month as maintenance to the opposite party who was applicant in the court below. The said matter was considered in detail and the order, which is sought to be reviewed, was passed on 08.05.2008. 4. Now the petitioner has sought review of the said order on the basis of deposition of one Vinay Sah in another case on 09.09.2009 stating that the opposite party was working. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the opposite party was a working lady and earning sufficient income, there was no question - 2 - of fixing maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to her. Hence, he prays that the impugned order passed in the civil revision be reviewed. 5. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that merely some statement of some person in some other case cannot be sufficient to review a well considered order of this court unless an order is passed by the court concerned relying upon such evidence. Apart from that there is no other reliable material on the basis of which any order can be passed in favour of the petitioner against whom there is specific allegation of harassing and torturing the opposite party due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, whereafter the petitioner himself refused to keep her and hence she was forced to go to her parent’s place. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of record, nor does it find any reliable material on the basis of which the impugned order could be reviewed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)