IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.611 of 2008 UPENDRA KUMAR SONY …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRATIMA DEVI, WIFE OF UPENDRA KUMAR SONY …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinah For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody has appeared on behalf of o.p.no.2 in spite of service of notice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the findings recorded by learned court below, it would appear that the quantification of the maintenance amount made under the impugned order is excessive. He draws attention of the Court to the findings/observations of learned court below culled out in paragraph 15 of the order impugned. It is the stand of the petitioner that he is a daily wager and is earning paltry amount. This Court finds from the impugned order that relevant consideration with regard to his capability to pay the maintenance amount has not been properly considered and findings recorded. There is, however, some indication in the evidence of witnesses adduced on behalf of the applicant-wife including A.W.3 (Sunil Kumar) that the petitioner is earning handsomely from the jewellery shop owned by the husband/petitioner. Keeping in view the overall facts appearing from 2 records, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.1500/- per month shall be appropriate amount of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the applicant-wife. Consequently, order impugned is modified to the effect that instead of a sum of Rs.2000/- per month, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the applicant-wife effective from the date of the order (01.04.2008). With this modification in quantification only, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )