IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1210 of 2009 Surendra Yadav son of Nand Kumar Yadav, resident of Village- Ygo , P. S. Raghunathpur District Siwan. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Indrawati Devi wife of Surendra Yadav Daughter of Saheb Yadav resident of village Ugo P.S. Raghunathpur District Siwan at present village Jaijor, P.S. Aandar District Siwan. 3. Govind Kumar Son of Surendra Yadav, resident of village Ugo, P.S. Raghunathpur District Siwan. ... Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 05.09.2011 This revision application has been filed under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the order dated 17th June 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2007 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1200/- per month to his wife and Rs.200/- per month to his son (opposite party nos. 2 and 3). The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Principal Judge has not relied upon the statement of the petitioner. On the 2 other hand he has relied upon the statement made on behalf of opposite party. The petitioner and his witnesses have fairly stated that the petitioner has neither jeep nor tractor nor landed property. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the evidence adduced on behalf of opposite parties it appears that their evidence is convincing and it has rightly been relied upon by the learned Principal Judge. He has further submitted that the amount fixed for maintenance is too meagre for maintenance of opposite parties. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. The evidence adduced on behalf of the wife has been found to be convincing. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband and father of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 3 respectively. They have no means to support themselves. The amount of maintenance is too meagre that cannot be reduced. With due regard to all the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)