VINOD KUMAR SINHA, J.:–The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the learned Pricnipal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, in Maintenance Case No. 171/2002, by which, he has directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- to opposite party no. 2.

2. It appears that a maintenance case was filed by opposite party no. 2 in the Court below stating that she was married with petitioner thirty five years ago and out of the wedlock, she has been blessed with two daughters and one of the daughters, namely, Nirmala was married in the year 2002 and she is living with her husband and another daughter, namely, Khusbu is a student of graduation. Further case of opposite party no. 2 is that the petitioner is Government Amin in Ramgadhwa Block in East Champaran and with the help of his brother in law, petitioner solemnized second marriage without seeking any divorce and when opposite party no. 2 made protest, the petitioner started misbehaving and stopped to provide maintenance to her and her daughter. Second wife of the petitioner also misbehaves with her and due to that the life of opposite party no. 2 became hell and due to non maintenance by the petitioner, the education of her daughter has interrupted and for that she filed the maintenance case for grant of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for herself and her daughter besides Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs) for marriage of her daughter.

3. The petitioner in the said maintenance case appeared on notice and admitted that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and also accepted that he has two daughters from opposite party no. 2 and he claimed that he solemnized the marriage of one daughter, namely, Nirmala as per his capacity. He also claimed that he takes full care of his second daughter, Khusbu and gives money for her education and the allegation of opposite party no. 2 that petitioner does not give any money is false and concocted. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that he has solemnized the second marriage after taking consent from the opposite party no. 2 and he gives full honour and regard to opposite party no. 2 and the allegation of ill treatment is false. It has further been submitted that petitioner is an agriculturist and he has no means to give the maintenance amount and he spends his entire income on his family.

4. It appears that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has examined three witnesses on behalf of opposite party no. 2 one Rupkala Devi, the opposite party no. 2 herself as A.W. 1 and another is Khusbhu as A.W.2, who is the daughter of opposite party no. 2 and one, Yugal Kishore Sharan as A.W. 3.

5. A.W. 1 Rupkala Devi fully supports her case for maintenance and stated that since the petitioner solemnized the second marriage, he started misbehaving with her and stopped providing maintenance to her and her daughter and due to which, they are leading a miserable life and the education of her daughter Khusbhu is interrupted and the second wife of the petitioner also started misbehaving with her. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that there is five bighas of land and her husband looks after the agriculture. Her evidence further shows that her husband is a retired employee and after retirement, the petitioner is cultivating the land in the village. This witness has admitted that her daughter Khusbu does some tuition work for the survival.

6. A.W. 2 Khusbu has also supported the maintenance case and has stated that the petitioner stopped giving money to her mother and education is interrupted and it has become very difficult for them to survive and whatever money is asked from petitioner, he flatly refused to pay the same. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her father (petitioner) was Government Amin in Gandak project and now he is retired. She stated that petitioner is not taking care her and her mother for last 4 -5 years.

7. A.W.3 Yugal Kisho