ORDER : This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in connection with Maintenance Petition No.49 of 2008 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 which will be payable from the date of order. 2. The facts of the case is that, the marriage between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized more than 45 years ago. After a period of 10 years of marriage, petitioner preferred 2nd marriage with another woman namely, Tikiya Devi. Thereafter, petitioner started neglecting the O.P. No.2 and also did not provide maintenance to her and as a result thereof, O.P. No.2 started living with her parents’ house. 3. It also appears from the impugned order that a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was made by the O.P No.2, at which, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.150/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 and the amount was subsequently enhanced to Rs.5,00/- per month. It also appears that at the time of filing of the Maintenance Petition being M.P. No. 49/2008, the petitioner was getting Rs.5,000/- per month as pension, Rs.50,000/- per annum from agricultural and annuities from fixed money of Rs.6 Lacs. 4. Before the trial court the Opposite party/petitioner filed show cause stating that 2nd marriage was solemnized with consent of the O.P No.2 and the O.P. No.2 left the petitioner of its own. He further stated before the learned trial court that he is not getting pension. 5. P.W.1 is the O.P. No.2 herself who supported her case and stated that the petitioner was regular employee in Railway and getting the pension and she is unable to maintain herself. She has also stated before the trial court that she has never given any consent for 2nd Marriage. The other prosecution witnesses P.W.2 namely, Ghani Ram Mahto is the maternal brother of the O.P No.2, who has stated that respondent was working as a gang man in the Railway. From the other witnesses, the 2nd marriage was also proved. 6. Two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner were examined by the trial court who has supported the case of the petitioner, it is pertinent to mention here that the husband/petitioner filed an affidavited examination-in-chief but he did not appear for his cross examination. From the other witnesses, the 2nd marriage was also proved. 6. Two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner were examined by the trial court who has supported the case of the petitioner, it is pertinent to mention here that the husband/petitioner filed an affidavited examination-in-chief but he did not appear for his cross examination. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that since the O.P No.2 was issueless for a period of 10 years after marriage and, therefore, she herself persuaded the petitioner for 2nd Marriage. He further argued that the O.P No.2 has prayed Rs.3,000/- but the learned trial court has awarded Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner, which is illegal and beyond jurisdiction. He further argued that Rs.5,000/- maintenance per month is very excessive and since the petitioner has retired, a sympathetic view may be taken in fixation of maintenance. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party supported the case of wife and relied on the order of the learned trial court. 9. Heard counsels for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and O.P No.2 were married and the O.P No.2 is unable to maintain herself. After 2nd Marriage of her husband i.e. petitioner herein, she was having just ground for not living with the petitioner and getting maintenance from him. 10. So far income of the petitioner is concerned the learned Court below has rightly taken into consideration the income of the petitioner from pension and other annuities secured by him. Further, the petitioner has also not solemnized himself for his cross-examination, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against him. 11. The petitioner was working in Railways and he must be getting a handsome pension per month. Seeing the dearness and price rise, Rs.5,000/- awarded as monthly maintenance does not seems to be excessive. 12. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available before him has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- per month. In my opinion, there is no illegality in the order and the petitioner is unable to make out a case before this Court and hence, the instant petition is dismissed.