IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.886 of 2010 Shivnandan Prasad Yadav, son of late Ganga Prasad Yadav, resident of village-Kamalpur (Bishnupur) P.S.-Govindpur, District- Nawada. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Saro Devi, wife of Shivanandan Yadav, D/O Munshi Prasad Yadav. 3. Mukesh Kumar, son of Shivnandan Prasad Yadav. (Both residents of village- Dhanpuri, P.S.-Govindpur, District- Nawada) ----------- 4. 23.08.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 8.02.2008 passed in Misc. Case No.186/06 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month as maintenance cost to his wife and her son namely Mukesh Kumar. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no.3 Mukesh Kumar has become major and as such, he is not entitled to get the maintenance amount. The learned counsel for the opposite party 2 nos. 2 and 3 submits that it appears from the impugned order that opposite party no.3 Mukesh Kumar was not major at the time of passing of the impugned order. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that it is admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no.2 and father of the opposite party no.3. The petitioner has sufficient means to support both of them, whereas, the wife and the son have no means to support themselves. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with this impugned order. The petitioner may raise the points of minority and majority in accordance with law. With this observation, this revision application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)