IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1401 of 2009 Suresh Pandey @ Ram Suresh Pandey son of Ram Lakhan Pandey, resident of village- Tetari, P.S.-Chenari, Post- Mamrejpur, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Prabhawati Devi wife of Suresh Pandey, resident of village- Tetari, P.S.- Chenari, Post- Mamrejpur, District- Rohtas at Sasaram, at present Address: Village- Dhadhi, P.S. Sonhan, District- Kaimur. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 3. 19.10.2011 The husband- petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabua in Maintenance Case No. 4 of 2002 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month to his wife-opposite party no. 2 (Prabhawati Devi). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and he has performed second marriage with Jaga Devi. The case of opposite party is that after the second marriage the petitioner has 2 been touring her and due to assault she became deaf and her eye sight has also become weak. She was ousted from her matrimonial home and she came to her naihar and filed a case under Section 494 and 498 A I.P.C. which is pending. During pendency of the case, the petitioner compromised the case and brought her to her matrimonial home but again she was assaulted and ousted. Thereafter, she has been living in her naihar and the petitioner is neither providing maintenance nor keeping her in his house. The father of opposite party also died and she has no means to support herself, whereas, the petitioner has 40-50 bigaha of land and his annual income is more than one lakh. The petitioner has filed his show-cause denying the allegation. The case of the petitioner is that opposite party is of unsound mind and deaf she acts on the instruction of her mother and brother. The opposite party does work of tailoring and earns Rs.2000/- per month. It appears that evidences have been adduced on behalf of both the parties and after considering the material on record the learned Principal Judge has passed the impugned order 3 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month for her maintenance. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)