IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1529 of 2009 Md. Irphanullah @ Md. Irfan s/o Jakir Husain, resident of Piprauna, P.S.- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Ishrat Naz w/o Md. Irfaullah @ Md. Irfan, resident of village- Piprauna, P.S.- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. At Present resident of village- Bhairwa, P.S. Bisfi, District- Madhubani. 2. Shaiyawa Khatoon D/o Irpfanullah @ Irphan resident of village- Piprauna, P.S. Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. At present resident of village Bhairwa P.S. Bisfi, District Madhubani. The minor daughter of petitioner under guardianship of mother, the opposite party no. 2. … Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 18.11.2011 This application is directed against the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M. R. Case No. 132/08 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month to his wife opposite party no. 1 and Rs.500/- per month to his minor daughter opposite party no. 2 for their maintenance. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is unemployed and he has no capacity to pay the amount of maintenance. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order 2 it appears that the case of the opposite party no. 1 is that she is the wife of the petitioner and out of their wedlock a daughter was born. Due to some reason the wife and the daughter were deserted by the petitioner they are not being maintained by the petitioner although he has sufficient means to maintain them. The petitioner works in Leather Bag Factory in Mumbai and he has 7 Bigahas of land and his monthly income is 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month. Even after service of notice the petitioner did not appear and contest the case. The case has been heard ex parte. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the wife. After considering the evidence on record, the impugned order has been passed. The amount of maintenance is not excessive. 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.)