IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.785 of 2008 PREM KUMAR S/O Late Ganga Dayal Ram, Resident of Bahadapur, P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. ---------------Petitioner Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Phulgenda Devi, W/O Shri Prem Kumar, Resident of Bahadurpur, P.S. Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad(Presently residing at Bhatauli, P.S. Nokha, District-Rohtas. --------------Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 01.10.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 17.5.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 2005 on the ground that the evidence was deficient to establish that the petitioner husband had a concubine and they refused to maintain her. There seems to be no dispute so far as the status of the applicant and her inability to maintain herself is/are concerned. Learned Trial Court in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 noted as under:- “9. The marriage has not been denied by the O.P. in his show cause. The O.P. has not claimed that he is maintaining the applicant. The O.P. has not claimed that the applicant is able to maintain herself. The O.P. has raised suspicion against the character of the applicant but there is no evidence brought on the record by the O.P. in respect of his show cause. As such on the strength of the discussions made above in the above going paras I hereby hold that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the O.P. and she is unable to maintain herself and O.P. has neglected to maintain the applicant. Applicant has come out with a clear case that 2 the O.P. has taken a mistress O.P. has denied the allegation in his show cause but there is no evidence in respect of the claim of the O.P on the other hand the applicant has supported her case on oath. I have nothing to disbelieve the sworn testimony of A.W.1 and A.W. 2. As such I hereby hold that the O.P has kept a mistress and as such the applicant has a right to refuse to live with the O.P. 10. The applicant has made oral statement that O.P. has 12 bighas of lands and has a income of Rs. One lac. There is no documentary evidence in support of the same. Hence I think it would not be proper to rely on the oral evidence of the applicant so far as it is concerned with the means of the O.P. parties to a litigation in maintenance case specially the wife has a tendency to exaggerate the means of the husband.” It seems from the findings of learned trial Court that the husband also raised suspicion about the character of the applicant wife. In the backdrop of these facts emanating from the record, learned Trial Court appraised the oral evidence and has come to the conclusion that the husband has refused to maintain his wife. This Court finds that learned Court below has granted a sum of Rs. 700/-per month to the applicant wife. This Court does not find any illegality and/or impropriety in the order made impugned in the present application. This application is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)