IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1494 of 2009 Chumalal Singh @ Chumalal, son of Indrajeet Singh, resident of village-Surmala, P.S.-G.B.Nagar, Tarwand, District- Siwan. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Lalpati Devi, wife of Chumalal Singh @ Chumalal, resident of village-Surmela, P.S.-G.B. Nagar Tarwar, District- Siwan. ……….Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 09.11.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 10.07.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Misc. Case No.54/2005 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-per month for his wife, Rs.500/-per month to his minor daughter Girija Kumari and Rs.200/-per month to Sangeeta Kumari, another minor daughter of the petitioner. The case of the opposite party no.2, the wife of the petitioner is that she was married to the petitioner on 22.04.1984. Out of that wedlock, two daughters namely Girija Kumari and Sangeeta Kumari were born. The petitioner lives at Kolkata since long time in connection with his business and come to his house on every 2 occasion. He has not been coming to his house for the last six years, prior to filing of the petition and has been neglecting the opposite party. She has no means to maintain herself and her children, whereas, the petitioner has income of Rs.500/-per day from business. The petitioner (opposite party) has filed his show- cause admitting his marriage with the opposite party no.2 and also admitted that he has been living in Kolkata in connection with business and has challenged the claim of two daughters to get maintenance on the ground that their names do not find place in the column of the petitioner and he has claimed that he has maintained his wife and his daughters and is also ready to maintain them in future. His earning is Rs.50/-per day from business at Kolkata. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no means to pay the amount of maintenance. His financial condition is miserable. It appears from the impugned order that it is admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and father of her daughters. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their case. The 3 learned Principal Judge has found that on account of his remarriage and torture, the opposite party no.2 and her daughters are not living with the petitioner. It has also been found that the petitioner has married another lady and his also built a house after purchasing land. The income of the petitioner has been held not less than Rs.8000/-per month. The petitioner is maintaining himself, his second wife Lalsha Devi, two sons and one daughter from his second wife and is also willing to keep his first wife and also to solemnize marriage of her two daughters. After considering all the materials on the record, the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount as aforesaid. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)