IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1250 of 2009 RAJ DULARI DEVI, wife of Sri Kameshwar Prasad, resident of village-Raghunath Tola, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Distt.-Patna, at present residing at Mohalla Paharpur, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner. Versus KAMESHWAR PRASAD, son of Sri Motri Ram, resident of vill.- Raghunath Tola, Punjabi Colony, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Distt.-Patna, at present residing at Mohalla Udan Tola( New Shivpuri), Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District-Patna---------------------------------Opp. Party. ----------- 9. 7.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the case maintenance was allowed for Rs.450/- per month on 6.5.1996. Petitioner was residing in her parental house and opposite party was working as driver in Rural Engineering Organisation. Originally the awarded amount is being deposited in petitioner’s account. Finding the amount insufficient due to dearness and increase in the salary of opposite party, a petition was filed in the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, to increase the maintenance amount. Apart from several objections, there was one specific objection on behalf of opposite party that part of the building owned by the petitioner is given on rent. So keeping the other sources in view the amount should not be increased. That is allowed also. Reasoning is given that maintenance amount deposited in complainant’s account was not being withdrawn regularly rather a lumsum amount was being withdrawn after interval of months for which submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that, that was also done when such kind of objection was raised on behalf of the husband. In the case, it is admitted that the petitioner is owner of a house and money - 2 - was not being regularly withdrawn from the account which clearly shows that other source of income was there and that has rightly been observed that other source was existing. An indication is also there about giving part of the house on rent. Petitioner failed to give any plausible explanation as why maintenance amount was not being withdrawn regularly, if really petitioner was in need of increase of maintenance. Though it is submitted on her behalf that petitioner has become pretty old and in coming and going to bank could have caused not drawing monthly amount but that is not an acceptable explanation and I find that family court has rightly decided that other source of income was there. Finding no infirmities the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, in Cr. Misc. no.19 of 2003 is hereby confirmed. This application is dismissed. Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )