IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1146 of 2009 Ratnesh Raut s/o Dineshwar Raut resident of village Saraiya Gopal, P.S. Patahi, District- East Champaran. … Opposite party/Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Ribha Devi w/o Ratnesh Raut D/o Maheshwar Singh, resident of village- Raghunathpur, P.S. Chiraiya, District- East Champaran. … Applicant/Opposite party. ----------- 2. 20.07.2011 This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 139 of 2009, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as ad- interim maintenance to his wife, opposite party no.2. Heard Mr. Manish Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aslam Ansari, learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not able to pay the aforesaid amount of maintenance due to his insufficient means. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the impugned order has been passed as with 2 regard to ad-interim maintenance and the petitioner may raise his grievance in the court below as the main case is pending for consideration. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the material on record, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and it further appears from the impugned order that the wife is willing to live with the petitioner but the petitioner is not willing to lead conjugal life with his wife, opposite party no. 2 and she has been ousted from her Sasural to live at her Naihar having no means to support herself. Court below has considered this aspect and passed the impugned order after considering the material on record. It also appears that neither any rejoinder to petition dated 22.6.2009 for grant of ad-interim maintenance has been filed nor a copy of the same has been received by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed as an ad-interim order 3 for maintenance to opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner. The petitioner may agitate his grievance before learned trial court. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)