IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1168 of 2009 Hiralal Yadav son of Ram Ayodhya Yadav @ Yodha Yadav, resident of Village-Barharwa Vishunpura, P.S.-Adapur, District-East Champaran. ..........Petitioner/Opposite Party Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Gyani Devi wife of Hiralal Yadav. 3. Chuman Kumari daughter of Hiralal Yadav. 4. Chandan Kumar son of Hiralal yadav. 5. Punam Kumari daughter of Hiralal Yadav. All residents of Barharwa Vishunpura, P.S. Adapur, District-East Champaran, at present Village-Latbhumanva, P.S.-Ramgarhwa, District-East Champaran. .....Opposite Parties/Petitioners ----------- 02 18.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 08.05.2009, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari, in Maintenance Case No. M-316 of 2008, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of rupees 2,400/- per month as interim maintenance for his wife and three minor children (opposite parties no. 2 to 5). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife and children with him and he is also ready to maintain them. He has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance allowance as directed by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel for the State submits that only a meagre amount has been fixed for the maintenance i.e. Rs. 2,400/-, Rs. 600/- per head. It is insufficient for their maintenance. 2 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,400/- per months as interim maintenance. The main case is pending before the learned Principal Judge, the petitioner may raise his grievances before that Court in the main petition for maintenance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is disposed of. Safik (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)