IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.799 of 2008 BABU LAL THAKUR SON OF GANGESHWAR THAKUR RESIDENT O F SIMRI P.S. SIMRI, DISTT- DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PEON, KOSHI REGIONAL GRAMIN BANK, CHANDRAYARI P.S. NAWHATTA, DISTT- SAHARSA. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SADHNA DEVI D/O RAM SHARAN THAKUR RESIDNET OF MOHALLA- BATNAHA BHARTIYA, WEARD NO.1 UNDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION P.S. AND DISTT-SAHARSA. 3. AMBIKA KUMARI MINOR DAUGHTER UNDER THE GUARDIAN SHIP OF SADHNA DEVI R/O BATRAHA BHYARTIYA WARD NO. 1 UNDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION P.S. AND DISTT- SAHARSA. …………OPP.PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP 3 30-09-2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the husband. He questions sustainability of order dated 7.7.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case no. 140 of 2004 (Sadhna Devi and Ors versus Babu Lal Thakur) whereby on a consideration of the materials brought on record by the parties, it has been found that the wife was entitled to maintenance in the sum of Rs. 600/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the application. Minor daughter Ambika Kumari was also found entitled to maintenance @ 200/- per month. It appears that during the pendency of the proceeding, another daughter was born to the applicant wife and she has also been directed to be paid a sum of Rs. 200/- per month. While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant Sadhna Devi was not legally 2 married to the petitioner. Petitioner had married one Seema Devi and the said wed-lock produced seven children. She was thus not accepted to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also raises a grievance with regard to quantification of maintenance amount allowed under the impugned order It appears that both the parties led oral evidence and brought on record documents in support of their respective claims. The applicant-wife produced four witnesses whereas the petitioner-husband got examined seven witnesses. Learned Trial Court on a consideration of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties has chosen to place reliance on the evidence produced by the applicant wife to the effect that she was legally married to the husband-petitioner. Apart from that, learned trial court has also placed reliance on Ext.1 (Ekrarnama) filed by the husband in connection with Complaint Case no. 453C/2001 wherein the petitioner admitted that the applicant-wife is married wife of the petitioner. This is what the trial court has observed “Her father has also admitted the marriage with o.p.and the p.ws 2 and 4 have also admitted the marriage of Sadhan Devi with Babulal Thakur. Now Babulal Thakur neglected her and now stopped her food the Ekrarnama Ext. 1 filed by the o.p. also goes to show that in complaint case no. 453 C/01 he has admitted that she is married wife and ordersheet dated 18.3.02 of 553C/08 also shows that a compromised has arrived in between them and out of that compromise and Ekrarnama, the case was withdrawn.” While quantifying the amount to be paid after having found that the applicant was the wife of the petitioner, the Court 3 embarked on ascertaining the income of the opposite party- husband. This is what the trial has found and observed : “So far as the income of O.P. is concerned it is admitted that he is a peon in K.K.G.B. Chandrain. He is getting less than Rs.7000/- salary. No service record has been filed. Then it can be presumed that he is also living with Seema Devi wife and other children keeping them in dark” . I have heard both sides. On a consideration of the materials on record including the findings recorded by the learned court below, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned as the same is found based on correct appraisal of the materials on record. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Devendra/pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )