IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1073 of 2007 MD.NURUDDIN SABIR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 19.9.2008 This application has been filed against the order dated 2nd July, 2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in Maintenance Case No. 28 of 2001, thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has wrongly awarded the maintenance to opposite party no.2. The real fact is that the petitioner has already divorced the opposite party no.2 long before the filing of the maintenance case. The fact was also admitted by her in G.R. Case No. 1287 of 1997. The second submission is that the petitioner is a daily wage earner. He has no sufficient means to pay maintenance to opposite party no.2 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the court below has rightly awarded the maintenance. The fact of divorce has not been proved, which is apparent from the impugned order. Neither the alleged petition filed in G. R. Case in question was brought on the record nor any attention was drawn to the opposite party no. 2 on contents of the petition. It is further submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the - 2 - learned Family Court is itself not sufficient to meet the bare needs of the opposite party no.2. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it would be clear that the allegation of Talak has not been substantiated. No document was produced before the court to substantiate the allegation. So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, even if the petitioner is a daily wage earner, the quantum of maintenance can not said to be disproportionate to the income of the petitioner. Thus, having regards to the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. DKS/ (Ghanshyam Prasad, J)