IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1419 of 2009 Nand Kishore Paswan son of late Chhote Paswan, @ Lahtori Paswan, resident of village Bagdobha, Punarwas, Police Station Matihani, District- Begusarai. … Opposite Party.. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Prabha Devi @ Pranha Devi wife of Nand Kishore Paswan, daughter of Brihaspati Paswan. 3. Priyanka Kumari @ Pinki Kumari 4. Puja Kumari Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are daughters of Nand Kishore Paswan, Opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are resident of village Bagdobha Punarwas, Police Station Matihani, District Begusarai, at present resident of village Bela Simri, Police Station Khagaria, (Mufassil), District Khagaria. … Applicants .. Opposite Parties. --- For the petitioner … Viveka Nand Singh, Adv. For the state …Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP ----------- 3. 15.11.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria in Maintenance Case No. 6-M of 2000 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to his wife opposite party no. 2 and Rs.1000/- each to his minor daughters opposite party nos. 3 and 4 per month for their maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the husband 2 of opposite party no. 2 and the father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4, as such the petitioner is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as maintenance to opposite party nos. 2 to 4. He has further contended that the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties has not been considered properly. The petitioner married to Sunita Devi and he has two sons and two daughters from his wife Sunita Devi. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Principal Judge has considered the pleadings of both the parties as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4. 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 pleadings of both the parties as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties carefully and has come to a finding that 3 opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been able to prove that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4. The amount of maintenance is also not excessive. Only Rs.1500/- has been granted for the wife and Rs.1000/- has been granted for the maintenance of each minor daughter opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)