IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1370 of 2009 Amit Kumar, s/o Arjun Prasad, resident of Mohalla Rajendra Path, Telbigha, near Ramruchi Girls School, P.S. Kotwali, District- Gaya. ….(OP) Petitioner. Versus Puspa Devi, w/o Amit Kumar, Mohalla Rajendra Path Telbigha near Ramruchi Girls School, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya, present address D/O Vijay Singh, village Muzaffarpur, P.S. Noorsarai, District- Nalanda. … petitioner/Opposite Party. ----------- 5. 21.09.2011 The husband- petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 1st September 2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharshari in Maintenance Case No. 11(M) of 2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife- opposite party for maintenance of herself and her minor daughter. Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party. Opposite party has no means to support herself and her daughter, as such, she filed aforesaid maintenance case. The other side- petitioner has appeared and filed his show- 2 cause. The witnesses have been adduced on behalf of both the parties, thereafter, the learned Principal Judge has come to the conclusion that from perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties it is an admitted position that both the parties are husband and wife and a daughter Annu Kumari was born out of said wedlock and she is still living with her mother. The petitioner is an employee of Indian Airlines at Gaya earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It has been disbelieved that the petitioner is an employee of the Indian Airlines earning Rs.70/- per day. The petitioner has stated that he has taken a two rooms flat on rent to keep his wife with him. His wife and his minor daughter have no means to support themselves, therefore, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife for the maintenance of herself and her daughter. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)