IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.827 of 2009 SATYA NARAYAN JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 15.5.2009 In the instant limitation petition the petitioner prays for condoning the delay for about two years in filing this revision application. The Opposite Party, Sunita Devi filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and prayed for maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Family Court, Madhubani held that Sunita Devi, the complainant has been wedded with O.P. who is petitioner in this revision in 1991. The plea of the opposite party Satya Narayan Jha is that he had been married to one Neeva Devi in the year 1986. The Principal Judge, Family Court disallowed the prayer of maintenance to Sunita Devi. The petitioner has filed this revision against part of the order by which she has been declared to have been married in the year 1991. Learned counsel submits that as maintenance case was dismissed, he became in different. The petitioner being illiterate did not know the import of the finding given therein on some issues, as opposite party no. 2 had lost the case. The petitioner of late has come to know that Court has given finding that she has been married in 1991 only. The finding regarding the factum of marriage by Principal Judge under Section 125 Cr. P.C. would always be subject to a decree of a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. The finding arrived at by the Principal Judge, Family Court is for satisfying itself for the - 2 - purpose of grant or refusal of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and 127 Cr. P.C. Nevertheless such finding will hold good till the same is upset by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is left with no other alternative remedy. I do not find any valid reason for condoning the delay of two years in filing this revision application. As a result, both the limitation petition and revision application stands dismissed. P. Kumar (S. P. Singh, J.)