IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1253 of 2008 Raj Kishore Jha @ Pappu Jha, son of late Dev Bhushan Jha, resident of Mohalla- T. V. Tower, Katihar, Police station & District- Katihar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mamta Devi, wife of Raj Kishore Jha, 3. Banti Kumari, minor daughter of Raj Kishore Jha, 4. Ritik Kumar Jha, minor son of Raj Kishore Jha, Both (Opp. Party nos. 3 and 4) under the guardianship of their mother, Mamta Devi, All (Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4) resident of Mohalla- T. V. Tower, Katihar, Police Station & District – Katihar at present residing at Sitla Ashtan, Police Station- Mirchaibari, District- Katihar. .. Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 21.09.2011 The husband- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in Maintenance Case No. 51 of 2003 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to his wife, minor daughter and son. Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned A.P.P. for the State. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the material on record, it 2 appears that Mamta Devi, wife of the petitioner, opposite party no. 2 filed Maintenance Case No. 51 of 2003 for maintenance of herself as well as for her minor daughter and son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After marriage the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 led conjugal life and out of that wedlock a son and a daughter were born. Later on, the petitioner and his family members tortured her and demanded dowry and lastly ousted her from the matrimonial home on 16.6.2003 and since then she has been residing in her parent’s house with her minor children. They have no means to support themselves, whereas, the petitioner is a railway employee getting Rs.10,000/- per month. In support of her contention, she has examined four witnesses. The case of the petitioner is that the maintenance petition is not maintainable as his wife is leading an adulterous life. He is a IVth grade employee and his salary is 4500/- per month only. He has no movable or immovable property or any other source of income and he has to maintain two minor brothers and old mother. Evidence has been adduced on behalf 3 of both the parties. After considering the case of both the parties and examining the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, learned Principal Judge has come to the conclusion that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to each of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 (wife, minor daughter and minor son of the petitioner). The petitioner has been held liable to pay amount of maintenance to his minor son and daughter till attaining the age of majority of son and till marriage of daughter. 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.)