IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1210 of 2006 JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Versus PUNAM DEVI ----------- 2 17.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the purport and nature of the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of the amount of monthly maintenance or with the approach of the Court below which has gone into the details by analyzing evidence on record for holding that it is the petitioner who has neglected his wife and accordingly is liable to pay the amount of maintenance to the opposite party. The submission of the Counsel of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month is an excessive amount is also not correct inasmuch as it has come in evidence that the petitioner a retired army personnel and has also income from his monthly pension as well as agricultural land. In that view of the matter, this Court considering the fact that the opposite party has not only to maintain herself but her two minor children, would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)