JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 17.08.2015 passed in Original Maintenance Case 92 of 2013 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka by which the petitioner was directed to make monthly payment of Rs. 3000/- to the Opp. Party No. 2. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, based on genealogical table, that the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 2 are cousin. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Nikah is itself disputed, in view of the evidence led from the side of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, being examined as OPW-5 has denied his solemnization of marriage with the Opp. Party No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of alleged marriage, the age of the petitioner was 14 years as per certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council. It has also been stated that as per the version of Opp. Party No. 2, at the time of marriage, certificate of Nikahnama was given but surprisingly, the same was never produced and, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of Opp. Party No. 2 to obtain further certificate from P.W.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s marriage has not been proved by Opp. Party No. 2 and as such, question of maintenance allowance in favour of Opp. Party No. 2 does not arise. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the certificate issued by Anjuman Islamiya Jama Masjid, Dumka does prove solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 2. He further submits that the petitioner has already solemnized another marriage and in fact, Opp. Party No. 2 has been ousted from her matrimonial house, leading to institution of Dumka Mufassil P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 494, 406, 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Addl. P.P. thus, has submitted that the impugned order be sustained. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that the petitioner has denied solemnization of his marriage with the Opp. Learned Addl. P.P. thus, has submitted that the impugned order be sustained. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that the petitioner has denied solemnization of his marriage with the Opp. Party No. 2, although during trial, evidences were led on behalf of both the sides in which claim and counter claim were made with respect to marriage between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 2, but the evidence of P.W.6, who is a Sadar of Anjuman Islamiya Jama Masjid, Dumka assumes significance. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Opp. Party No. 2 has not filed any document so as to disclose the date of marriage, but as per the evidence of P.W.6, he has proved the Nikahnama from which it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 2 was solemnized on 30.03.2000 in Anjuman Islamiya Jama Masjid, Dumka. P.W.6 has further deposed that Nikahnama was issued by Khurshid Alam, as he has identified his writing and signature on it. 7. Thus, the evidence of P .W.6 arrests the controversy with respect to the date of marriage of the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 2. It further appears that the petitioner has solemnized another marriage for which Opp. Party No. 2 has already instituted Dumka (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013. Thus, she was prevented by sufficient cause to stay with the petitioner, as her ouster was on account of the second marriage solemnized by the Opp. Party No. 2, which led her to file a criminal case. 8. Since the issue, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties has been answered in the preceding paragraphs, the only issue, which is left to be decided is the quantum of maintenance. 9. It appears from the evidences that the petitioner is working in Purohit Industrial Corporation and getting a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The quantum of maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month is a reasonable amount considering the present day price index and the income of the petitioner. 10. Thus, the marriage between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 2 has been established beyond all reasonable doubt and so has the sufficient cause shown by the Opp. 10,000/- per month. The quantum of maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month is a reasonable amount considering the present day price index and the income of the petitioner. 10. Thus, the marriage between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 2 has been established beyond all reasonable doubt and so has the sufficient cause shown by the Opp. Party No. 2 not to reside with the petitioner and the quantum of maintenance, which has been allowed by the learned trial court below is just and proper and, therefore, in the circumstances noted above, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.