IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.638 of 2010 1. Yogendra Rishideo S/O Bhagwat Rishideo R/O Vill.- Wagriyani Shankar,P.S.- & Dist.- Madhepura. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Amla Devi W/O Yogendra Rishideo R/O Vill.- Wagriyani Shankar,P.S.- & Dist.- Madhepura. ---------------------------------- 02. 23.12.2011 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be placed on record. The petitioner/husband has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura in Maintenance Case No. 37 of 2008, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,00/- per month to his wife for the maintenance of her and her minor children. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance to his wife as he has also to support his mother and father. It appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the wife opposite party. It appears that the petitioner has not appeared to cross-examine the witness. The petitioner has adduced P.W.1 Amla Devi, who stated that the petitioner is a Chaukidar 2 in police department and his salary is Rs.12,000/- per month. It appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence and thereafter passed the impugned order. It is admitted fact that four minor children are living with the wife of petitioner opposite party No.2. The amount of maintenance is meagre. It is submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the arrear amount of maintenance and he is ready to pay the amount of arrear maintenance in installments. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a petition for the payment of arrears of amount of maintenance in installment before the learned Principal Judge. In case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- within a month, no coercive step will be taken against him for the period of one month. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is accordingly dismissed. Mkr. ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)