IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.429 of 2009 FANINDRA KUMAR SON OF SARYUG PRASAD, R/O- VILLAGE BHATAHAR, P.S.- THARTHARI, DISTRICT- NALANDA. Versus SANJIVA KUMARI WIFE OF PHANINDRA KUMAR, D/O- SRI DWARIKA PRASAD, R/O- VILLAGE NIRMALBIGHA, P.S.- TELHARA (EKANGARSARAI), DISTRICT- NALANDA. For the petitioner : Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Ayodhya Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 29.10.2010 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party and the State. Husband is aggrieved by order dated 26th August, 2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda in Matrimonial Case no. 31M of 1998 whereby on a consideration of the evidence on record, learned Court below has found that the wife was neglected by the husband and she was unable to maintain herself and accordingly, after having ascertained the capability of the petitioner(husband), has fixed a maintenance in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month payable to wife (O.P. no. 2) and daughter. The status of the parties are admitted. Relationship became strained and as a result whereof, she is not residing with the husband is also somewhat admitted. The findings with regard to the capability of the husband to pay the maintenance amount has been questioned. It appears from the evidence on record that parties were in agreement that the husband was running a shoe shop in Hilsa and earning handsomely. By oral evidence, the wife has tried to demonstrate that still the husband is running a shop 2 and making handsome earning therefrom. The stand of the husband petitioner is that while he was sent to jail custody in connection with Section 498A IPC case, the shop was closed down. It further appears from the materials on record that the petitioner has also ancestral land as well as house. Learned Trial Court found from the evidence of the husband-petitioner that running of the shop was somewhat admitted by him. It has also found that the husband owned agricultural land house. Considering his admission read in the light of oral evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant-wife, it has been found that the petitioner earns handsomely and is capable of making payment of a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Let it be noted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been granted for the maintenance of the wife as well as the daughter. This Court does not find any patent illegality in the consideration of the material by the Court below meriting interference. The application lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )