IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.623 of 2008 ROZIDAN BEGUM …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ABDULLA …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Rajnikant Pandey For O.P.No. 2 :Mr.G.C.Sharma For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 04. 15.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the wife. She made claim for maintenance. Learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Kaimur by order dated 19.12.2007 rejected the said claim. I have heard the parties at length. The issue raised before this Court is only in respect of the amount which the husband would be liable to pay to the wife. Under the order impugned, it has been found that the wife who is residing separately earns Rs. 50-60 per day from vegetables vending. Learned court below in paragraph 8 of the judgment has found as under: “However, those oral evidence can not be trusted as absolute facts, as there is no document on the record to support their testimonies. But it is obvious from these evidences which have not been controverted by the O.P., that the O.P. has got vegetables business and is earning not less than Rs.10, 000/- per month. That being so, the O.P. has got sufficient means.” It is also evident from the order impugned that three children born out of the wedlock between the husband and the wife are residing with the husband(o.p.no.2) and they are being 2 maintained. Learned court below in paragraph 9 of the judgment has found that the wife’s admitted income from vegetables vending is at the rate of Rs.50-60 per day. This, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was deemed sufficient for her maintenance and, accordingly, the prayer made on her behalf was refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to paragraph 5 of the show cause filed on behalf of the husband wherein it has been averred that the petitioner-wife was staying with her parents and was involved in joint business of vending vegetables. On the strength of these statements/averments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this earning of Rs. 50-60 per day was joint earning. The father of the petitioner is aged and has to support the mother of the petitioner as well. In these backgrounds, it is contended that the order impugned merits interference. This Court finds from paragraph 9 of the judgment that the sole ground for refusal of the maintenance was that learned court below found that she was earning Rs. 50-60 per day from vegetables vending. The said finding read in the light of the statement of the husband made in paragraph 5 of the show cause seems to be unreasonable and not supported by the materials on record. Evidence on record indicates that the husband deals in whole sale business of vegetables. Learned trial court on the basis of materials on record has quantified his income close to ten thousand per month. 3 In view of these facts appearing from record, in my view, refusal to grant maintenance would be unjustified. Accordingly, the order impugned is interfered with and modified to the extent that the wife shall be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month with effect from the date of order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )