IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.296 of 2011 ============================================= Sri Navin Kumar Gupta, son of Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, resident of Radhika Bhawan, Apni Prasad Hotel Sevak Road, Siliguri, P.S.-Siliguri, District- Darjeeling. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Khushbu Gupta, wife of Sri Naveen Kumar Gupta, daughter of Sri Ramanand Gupta, resident of Maharajganj, P.S.-Jamui, District- Jamui .... .... Opposite Parties ============================================= 2 14-07-2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case No.58M of 2010 by which he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8000/-per month to his wife, O.P.No.2. Heard Mr. Purnendu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Principal Judge has passed the impugned order without taking into evidence regarding the in-come of the petitioner and secondly the petitioner is ready to lead conjugal life with his wife, O.P.No.2 and he is also ready to appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui for the purposes of conciliation in the proceeding and some protection should be given to him so that he may not be arrested. He is ready to appear before the learned Principal Judge within a period of two weeks from today. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that the learned Principal Judge has considered the income of the petitioner as well as his wife. It further appears from the order that the petitioner has a good hotel business and has earning from rent from his 5 storied building. The monthly income of the petitioner has been assessed Rs. 4 to 5 lacs. It further appears from the impugned order that the petitioner does not appear personally in the maintenance case for re-conciliation. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it appears that the impugned order has been passed for interim maintenance to opposite party no.2 which will be given by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is ready to lead conjugal life with his wife, the O.P.No.2. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. If the petitioner appears before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Case No.58M/10, the case should be fixed for re-conciliation between both the parties and a protection should be given to the petitioner so that he may not be arrested during that period. It will be open to both the parties to lead their evidence regarding their respective in-come. With this direction, this application stands disposed of. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)