IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.936 of 2008 Pankaj Kumar Gupta, son of Madan Prasad Gupta, resident of Batraha, Ward No.14, P.S. and District-Saharsa. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Rinki Devi, wife of Pankaj Kumar Gupta, resident of village-Bhagwatpur, P.S.-Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa. ………Opposite Parties ----------- 5. 18.10.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 18.06.2008 passed in Misc. Case No.114/2005 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-per month for the maintenance of his wife, opposite party no.2 and his child. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after passing of the impugned order, the opposite party no.2 has remarried and as such, she is not entitled to get the maintenance amount from the petitioner. Mrs. Riva Kumari, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 disputes this fact and asserts that the opposite party no.2 has not remarried. After hearing the learned counsel for both the 2 parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite party. The petitioner has not taken any step to adduce evidence on his behalf. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner may raise his grievance before the Principal Judge in accordance with law. This petition stands disposed of. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)