IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.131 of 2009
Ashok Mishtry, son of late Ganauri Mishtry, resident of village-
Singhaul, P.S.- Muffasil Nawada, District- Nawada.
.............Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Urmila Devi, wife of Ashok Mishtry, resident of village-
Budhaul, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada.
.............Opposite Parties
-----------
6. 21.11.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision
application against the order dated 27.09.2008 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada in
Misc. Case No.11/2004/164/2006 by which the petitioner
has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month for
the maintenance of his wife, opposite party no.2 and his
minor sons and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is ready to maintain his wife and his two
sons, but she is not living with the petitioner. As such, she
is not entitled to get the maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
submits that the petitioner has assaulted his wife, the
opposite party no.2 for the fulfillment of the demand of
2
dowry and has dragged her out from his house after taking
her ornaments and other belonging and she has filed
Complaint Case No.446/2000 and the petitioner had to go
in jail in that case. The opposite party no.2 has no means
to support herself and her two minor sons, who are living
with her, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to
maintain her and her children. He has also arranged
another marriage. As such, the petitioner does not want to
live with him. He has further submitted that the amount of
maintenance is too meagre.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that it is admitted position that the petitioner is the
husband of opposite party no.2 and father of two minor
sons born out of their wedlock. Both the parties have led
their evidence in support of their case. It has been
considered by the learned trial court that due to some
reasons, the conjugal life between the petitioner and his
wife is frustrated and she is living separate with her sons.
The wife and minor sons are unable to maintain
themselves, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to
maintain them. Considering the facts and circumstances,
3
the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-
for the maintenance of three persons, wife and two sons,
which is not excessive.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order. This petition is dismissed.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)