ORDER : This revision is directed against the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Miscellaneous Case No.79A of 2006 whereby and whereunder the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- for each children and Rs.2000/- for applicant no.1-wife. The petitioner-husband has been further directed to pay amount of arrear from the date of application till the month of January, 2012 in one lump sum. The monthly maintenance onwards from February, 2012 will be payable on the 10th day of the same month and so on and so forth. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of maintenance within three months of the order, failing which the applicant can get it executed properly. 2. The short fact in the case is that Sunita Devi being wife of opposite party-Ajit Kumar Neelam married on 07.05.1989. From that wedlock, applicant nos.2 to 4 were born. Due to torture meted out to her and non fulfillment of demand of Maruti car as well as cash of Rs.2,00,000/- , she was driven out from the matrimonial home. The further case is that opposite party-husband solemnized second marriage with Munni Kumari, D/o Ram Pravesh Ram on 18.05.2005. The children are studying and facing difficulty. The case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is also pending between the parties. She has no independent source of income whereas husband is running a telephone booth and also working as an agent of Sahara India as well as he is having 12 Bighas of cultivable land and earns Rs.25,000/- per month. 3. The opposite party-husband by filing the written statement denied the allegation. He claimed himself to be unemployed and have no source of income. He has only 15 decimals of land. He wanted the settle the matter and restore family relationship but the same was failed and false case of demand of dowry was also filed. Since he has refused to become Gharjamai, so case has been instituted upon him. The applicant-wife is an educated lady employed in a private school and presently she is working as Para Teacher getting sufficient amount to meet her expenses. Since he has refused to become Gharjamai, so case has been instituted upon him. The applicant-wife is an educated lady employed in a private school and presently she is working as Para Teacher getting sufficient amount to meet her expenses. The court below after consideration of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties came to the conclusion that since the husband has contracted another marriage therefore, the applicant-wife under law can refuse to reside with such husband. 4. Under these circumstance, the court below held that the applicant-wife is entitled for amount of maintenance from the opposite party-husband. The court below after considering the income of the husband directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- for each children and Rs.2000/- for applicant-wife as the applicant-wife also earn Rs.1500/- per month. Further direction was to pay arrear of maintenance amount from the date of application till the date of judgment i.e. January, 2012 in one lump sum and thereafter ordered to pay monthly maintenance from February, 2012 onwards. The further direction was to pay maintenance within three months from the date of order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party-husband submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The Court has assessed the income of the opposite party no.2-wife as Rs.1500/- per month which is sufficient to maintain herself even then the court below has allowed the maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to her. It was also submitted that the income of the petitioner-husband has not been properly assessed as it was not stated in the evidence that her husband has one computer café and restaurant but the Court while assessing the income of the husband also taken into account the income from the computer café and restaurant. The court below has also not considered that the opposite party no.2-wife has not verified from the office of Sahara bank as to whether her husband is working as agent or not and in whose name telephone booth stands. Lastly, he has submitted that practically it is impossible to run a telephone booth and act as an agent of Sahara bank beside that run a restaurant and computer café by one person. Therefore, the court below has erred in coming to the finding regarding income of the petitioner-husband. 6. Lastly, he has submitted that practically it is impossible to run a telephone booth and act as an agent of Sahara bank beside that run a restaurant and computer café by one person. Therefore, the court below has erred in coming to the finding regarding income of the petitioner-husband. 6. In spite of notice, opposite party nos.2 to 5 did not appear before the Court although the service of notice was validly served upon them. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand being opposite party no.1 supported the impugned order and submitted that since the husband has solemnized second marriage therefore, opposite party no.2-wife is living separately due to sufficient compulsion and in this situation she is entitled for an amount of maintenance. The court below has rightly awarded the amount of maintenance. 8. Considering the pleadings of the parties as well as on perusal of the Lower Court Records, it appears that the court below after due consideration has allowed the maintenance to the opposite party/applicant-wife as well as the minor children. Since the court below has considered the income of the opposite party no.2-wife therefore, lesser amount was awarded to her. Considering the expenses which normally incurred on the children while pursuing their studies, the awarded maintenance would meet their requirement. 9. Therefore, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, instant revision application is dismissed.