IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1082 of 2009 Ashfaque Ansari @ Billu, son of Isha Ansari, resident of village-Chintawanpur, P.S.-Malahi, District- East Champaran. Versus Rizwana Khatoon, D/o Md. Ghani Ansari, resident of village-Nakched Tola, P.S.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran. ----------- 3. 20.07.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No.50 M/2008, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/-per month as maintenance to his wife, opposite party. Heard Mrs. Saba Ashfaque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no sufficient means to pay the amount of maintenance as his earning is Rs.50- 100/-per day. He is not a broker of share market. He has never demanded car from the father of opposite party. The father of the petitioner is in service in the District of Pujawa. The petitioner earns Rs.1500-2000/-per month. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, it 2 appears that Rijwana Khatoon, opposite party has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari vide Maintenance Case No.50 M/2008 stating therein that she was married with the petitioner on 22.06.2006. Thereafter, she lived with her husband and other family members of his family. After some time, the petitioner and other family members tortured her and demanded a car, which was not fulfilled by the opposite party and since then, the petitioner is not ready to keep the opposite party as his wife. She has no means to maintain herself, whereas, the earning of the petitioner is Rs.30,000/-per month and annually income from all sources is Rs.5,00,000/- as he is broker in share market. It further appears that the opposite party had examined four witnesses including herself in support of her claim. The petitioner has appeared and filed his show-cause denying the demand of dowry. Later on, after filing the show-cause, the petitioner has left the case and has not cross-examined the witnesses produced by his wife. It appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party. It further appears from the impugned order that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari has considered the 3 evidence and has found that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife, but he has refused to maintain her. His wife has no means to support herself. After considering the evidence, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/-per month to his wife, opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. The petition at flag ‘A’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay also stands disposed of. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)