IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1361 of 2009 Mahadeo Yadav, son of Baidhnath Yadav, resident of village- Gordhowa, P.S.-Muffasil Akauna, District- Nawada. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sangita Devi, wife of Mahadeo Yadav, resident of village- Giriyak Bigha, P.S.-Giriyak, District- Nalanda. ……….Opposite Parties ----------- 3. 29.09.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 20.06.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Maintenance Case No.28 (M) of 2005 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-per month to his wife and his minor son for their maintenance. Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.B.Pandey, the learned counsel for the State. It is admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the son Prince Kumar was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and son and the opposite party no.2 has no sufficient means to maintain 2 themselves. Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/-per month for his wife and Rs.500/-per month for his minor son till attaining the age of majority. The amount of maintenance is meagre. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)