JUDGMENT

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.12.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 296/2013 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea whereby and whereunder the learned Family Court has been pleased to dismiss the maintenance case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity inasmuch as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has refused to allow any amount of maintenance to the applicant–wife on the solitary ground that she has not come herself to depose in course of evidence and therefore the deposition of the witnesses in her support would not carry any weight.

4. Learned counsel submits that on a bare perusal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure ‘1’), it would appear that the said application was duly supported by an affidavit.

5. In response thereto the husband– opposite party admitted in his reply that he had performed a second marriage with a widow but his allegation was that the applicant–wife had refused to serve th