IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1054 of 2009 ============================================= Shyam Kishore Singh @ Pappu Singh, son of Munna Singh @ Ravindra Nath Singh, resident of village- Kabirpur, P.S.- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Ranju Devi w/o Shyam Kishore Singh @ Pappu Singh r/o village- Kabirpur, P.S.- Mohammad Pur, District.Gopalganj, at present resident of village- Tierlokwan, P.S. Kesria, Dist. Motihari. 2. The State of Bihar. .... .... Opp. Parties ============================================= 2 13-07-2011 The husband – petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 27.5.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 302 of 2008 by which he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as ad-interim maintenance to his wife, opposite party no. 1. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned court below has committed error on simply relying on the averments of opposite party made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned court below has further committed error by not evaluating the economical condition of the petitioner. The petitioner is a jobless and landless person. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order and the order sheet of maintenance case no. 302 of 2008, it appears that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 1 is not in a position to maintain herself whereas her husband/petitioner is a rich man. It also appears from the order dated 27.5.2009 that petitioner has contacted second marriage. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is landless person and he has no source of income. It also appears that four witnesses have been adduced in support of the case of opposite party, wife. Considering the facts and circumstances, learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as an ad interim maintenance to opposite party no.1. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. KANCHAN KUMAR SINGH/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)