IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1259 of 2007 SK.TABREJ S/O SK. MAQUBOOL, R/O VILL. MURLI BHARAHAWA, P.S. GAUNAHA, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN . ---PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BASARA KHATOON D/O SK. NOORUL HASAN R/O VILL. RAKHANI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN. ---- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 05 12.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and opposite party no.2. Petitioner, who is husband, assails the order dated 31-08-2007 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bettiah, West Champaran in Maintenance case nol. 32 of 2003/ 259 of 2005 (Basra Khatoon vs. Sk.Tabrej), whereby on a consideration of the materials brought on record by the parties it has been found and held that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner/husband. It has also been found and held that petitioner ousted his wife on certain allegations and thereafter contracted second marriage. On a consideration of the materials on record opposite party no.2/ wife was found to be entitled to maintenance and petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per month to his wife/opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no consideration with regard to the capability of the petitioner to pay the amount as maintenance. It is, thus, contended that the order requires to be interfered with. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on 2 behalf of the opposite party no.2 states with reference to the deposition of the petitioner/husband that he has candidly stated that he has ousted the opposite party no.2 and thereafter contracted the second marriage. From his deposition it is pointed out that he refused to maintain the opposite party no.2. From the evidence of witness no.1, namely Alamgir Mian, in paragraph no.8 produced on behalf of the opposite no.2 herein, it appears that this witness admitted the potentiality of the petitioner to pay maintenance amount to the wife. It further appears from the evidence of petitioner (Sk.Tabrej) that he has pucca dwelling house consisting of five rooms. Consistent case of the wife/opposite party no.2 is that after her ouster petitioner contracted second marriage. Maintaining the wife is the responsibility of the husband. The fact that he has already contracted second marriage and is living with her is also indicative of his capability. In these fact situation, learned Court below has observed as under:- “…..Obviously she is in need of money. Her husband is said to be a man of means having arable lands and a kirana shop…..” Considering these aspects of the matter and keeping in focus meager amount of maintenance (Rs. 700/- per month), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)