IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.66 of 2007 RAMESH PRASAD Versus URMILA DEVI @ BUCHI DEVI ----------- 02. 08.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of petitioner challenging order dated 04.11.2006 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara, allowed Misc. Case No. 103 of 2002(145 of 2005) and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party who was applicant in the court below. The aforesaid miscellaneous case was filed by the sole opposite party under the provision of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedcure claiming to be the wife of the petitioner being married on 23.06.1999 according to Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner appeared in the said case and contested the claim of the opposite party stating that he is always ready and willing to keep the opposite party with him and for that purpose he has also filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights much earlier on 24.05.2000 but the opposite party is contesting the said suit and is not willing to live with the petitioner. It was also claimed that the petitioner is an unemployed person whereas the opposite party is a government employee. Considering the entire material in detail the learned court below has allowed the miscellaneous case filed by the opposite party by the aforesaid impugned order dated 04.11.2006. From perusal of the materials on record including - 2 - the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the learned court below had considered the evidence adduced by both the parties and had come to the conclusion that AW.-1 the mother of the opposite party, AW.-2 Ranjit Kumar and AW.-3 ,who is opposite party, had fully proved her claim that after marriage the petitioner demanded Rajdoot motorcycle which could not be fulfilled whereafter the opposite party was made victim of harassment and torture and was refused to be kept with the petitioner due to which she was forced to go to her parents’ house. It was also stated by the witnesses that the petitioner is a man of means having a flour and oil mill and is also running Kirana shop as well as iron and cement shop on the main road of the village apart from owning 06 Bighas of land. It was also stated by them that the economic condition of the parent of the opposite party was very poor and she was unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the petitioner, who was opposite party in the learned court below could not produce any material to show that the claimant who is opposite party in the instant case was either employed anywhere or had any source of income. So far the question of income of the petitioner is concerned, the opposite party who was examined as AW.-3 clearly deposed regarding it but there was no cross-examination of the witness on that point which was corroborated by the other two witnesses AWs.-1 and 2 also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner including OW.-1,who is the petitioner - 3 - himself could not validly contradict the claim of the opposite party and did not make any statement to the effect that he ever went to bring his wife back. It was also found by the learned court below that the opposite party who was applicant in the learned court below had instituted a case for offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Dowry Act against the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)