IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1004 of 2006 Sheikh Sami @ Sami Ahmad son of Shamshuddin, resident of village Jagdishpur, Police Station Manpur, District Gaya .......Petitioner Versus 1. Mohshina Khatun wife of Sheikh Sami, resident of village- Bibipur, Police Station Kakoo, Dist-Jehanabad. 2. Shahnabaj, daughter of Sheikh Sami, under guardianship of Mohashina Khatun, resident of village- Bibipur, Police Station-Kako, Dist-Jehanabad. ----------- 8 05.07.2011 Heard Mr. Saroj Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Chandrasekhar & Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned counsels for the opposite parties. The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2003 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2750 per month for their maintenance. The case of the petitioner is that Mohshina Khatun (petitioner) filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate stating therein that she was married to the petitioner Sheik Sami@Sami Ahmad in the year 1992. According to the Muslim rite and rituals after the marriage both of them lead conjugal life. Two sons and one daughter were born out of that wedlock. Later on, the revision petitioner demanded dowry, some demands were met by the father and brother of the lady but again the petitioner demanded more money later on when she was going to her Nehar her son Mumtaz and daughter Tabarun were kept by the petitioner where after she 2 went to her father’s house with her daughter Shahnabaj. Petitioner said that firstly, her husband did not take care of her and her daughter, she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter, whereas, her husband has a tempo and earns Rs. 300 to 500 per day. After the trial, the impugned order has been passed as aforesaid. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order has been passed ex-parte and no opportunity was given to him to contest the case. He has no sufficient means to pay the amount of maintenance to the opposite party (wife and daughter). Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the petitioner appeared in the Maintenance Case No. 13 of 2003 before the learned Magistrate through his learned counsel on 10.02.2005 and taken time for filing the show cause. Several adjournments were given to the petitioner for filing the show cause but the petitioner did not choose to file show cause. As such on 25th August, 2005 the case proceeded for ex-parte. Even after giving him sufficient opportunity to contest the case, the petitioner did not contest the case. The learned counsel for the wife has examined four witnesses. From the evidence it appears that the wife of the petitioner and his daughter Shahnabaj have no means to maintain themselves, whereas, the petitioner plies the tempo and earns Rs. 300 to 500 per day. It has been purchased by the petitioner after taking the money from the father of his wife Moshina Khatoon. It 3 has also come in the evidence that the petitioner has also married another lady. He has further submitted that the amount of maintenance is hardly sufficient for the maintenance of Moshina Khatun and her daughter Shahnabaj. The Opp. Party No. 1 Mohsina Khatun has not remarried nor she has been divorced. He has further submitted that this revision application has been pending for more than four years due to the lethargic attitude of the petitioner and it has been dismissed for default due to negligence of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is correct. It appears that the petitioner appeared in maintenance case before the learned Magistrate through his learned counsel and prayed for time on 10.02.2005 and the case was adjourned at his instance for filing the show cause to the maintenance petition but the petitioner did not file the show cause and ultimately the case proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.08.2005 against the petitioner. It has not been denied that the petitioners of the maintenance case are not wife and daughter of the petitioner. It is also admitted position that the minor daughter Shahnabaj is living with her mother Mohshina Khatoon. It has been found during the trial for the maintenance that they have no means to maintain themselves, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain himself as well as her wife and the children. He is earning Rs. 300 to 500 per day by plying tempo. It appears that the 4 petitioner has not been paying the amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this revision application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500 to the opposite party. Prakash ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)