IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1409 of 2007 SANGEETA DEVI W/O DHRUB NARAYAN PRASAD --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHRUB NARAYAN PRASAD S/O SHRI PRAHLAD PRASAD. -- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 3 23.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner who is estranged wife of the opposite party no.2 (husband) is aggrieved by order dated 22. 08.2007 whereby, on a consideration of the materials on record, learned Principal Judge Family Court, Bettiah, West Champaran, allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed for payment of a sum of Rs. 800/- per month to the minor son ( Vivek Kumar) and Rs. 500/- to the wife ( present petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband is a Village Labour Work ( for short ‘VLW’) in the Government service and gets close to Rs. 8000/-. The amount allowed to be paid to her and her minor son is disproportionate/inadequate. Learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 /husband has stated before this Court that as directed by the learned Court below he is paying the maintenance amount regularly to the wife (petitioner). This Court on a perusal of paragraph no. 7 finds that learned Court below has found that the carry home salary is 2 only 8500/-. Further it appears that some objection was raised by the husband/ opposite party no.2 that the wife is also earning. As no requisite prove was placed on record in respect of the said claim learned trial Court has refused to accept the same. Having heard both the sides and after going through the order impugned this Court is satisfied that no illegality as such has been committed by the learned Court below meriting interference. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal J. )