IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.325 of 2009 Nitesh Kumar Rai @ Rajesh Kumar Rai son of late Jagdish Rai, resident of village- Pipararh, , P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar. … Petitioner. Versus Rekha Devi d/o Madhav Rai, resident of village- Dhanchhunha, P.S. Sahar (Chauri), District- Bhojpur. … Opposite party. ----------- 6. 26.07.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 25th September 2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No. 125 of 2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1800/- per month to opposite party. The wife-opposite party filed the aforesaid Maintenance case No. 125 of 2007 stating therein that she was married to petitioner on 27th May 2005 thereafter she went to her matrimonial home where demands of dowry was made. Due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry the opposite party was tortured and she was also taken to mental hospital at Ranchi and left there. Opposite party has been living at her father’s house having no source of income, whereas, the petitioner has landed property and he earns Rs.65,000/- per annum and 2 from cows his earning is Rs.15,000/- per month and also a shop from which his earning is Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner has appeared and filed his show-cause admitting that opposite party is his legally wedded wife. It has been alleged that his wife is of unsound mind. The petitioner has also filed Divorce Case No. 106 of 2007 and he has also admitted that he has only six bigahas of land from which he has to maintain his mother and himself. There is no shop and other business. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Principal Judge has not decided the income of the petitioner even then he has passed the order directing him to pay Rs.1800/- per month to opposite party, wife. The wife also claims that she had no source of income whereas the petitioner has sufficient means and even thereafter has willfully neglected the opposite party. These facts have to be proved by the wife of the petitioner but it has not been proved. It has further been submitted that after amendment in the Hindu Succession Act the daughter has also got the same right in the coparcenary property if she had been a son and this aspect has not 3 been considered by the learned Principal Judge. In that view of the matter also, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that learned court below has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. It is consistent evidence of the wife that she was tortured for dowry and she was driven out from her matrimonial home by her husband. It is further submitted that the amount fixed by learned trial court is not sufficient for maintenance of opposite party and the amount should be enhanced. Learned Principal Judge, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, has come to the conclusion that wife-opposite party has no source of income and she is entitled for maintenance. The petitioner has 12 bigahas of land and the business of milk. The petitioner has himself admitted that he has six bigahas of land. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties 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. It is admitted 4 position that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party. The wife has contended that she has no source of livelihood whereas the petitioner has sufficient means and he has willfully neglected her maintenance. The petitioner has not asserted as to how the opposite party has own source of her livelihood or how much share in the property of her father. According to the petitioner, he had six bigahas of land. On the basis of material on record, the learned Court below has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1800/- per month to opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)