JUDGMENT : Arvind Singh Chandel, J. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Maintenance Case No 171 of 2007/CIS No 0000793 of 2013 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the application submitted under Section 125 of the Cr P C by opposite party No 2 and directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs 8,000/-to opposite party No 2 and Rs 5,000/- to opposite party No 3 from the month of December, 2016. 2. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the impugned order as well as other materials available on record. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in his written statement, petitioner has admitted the fact that opposite party No 2 is his legally wedded wife. It further shows that after filing the application under Section 125 of the Cr P C, on 24.11.2009, a compromise took place between the parties and as pleaded by opposite party No 2-wife, the petitioner had taken her in his house. There she stayed for some period and during that period, she conceived and on 09.08.2010, opposite party No 3, namely, Nidhi Kumari was born. 4. Contrary to that, the petitioner pleaded before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that after the compromise, both the petitioner and opposite party No 2, on 24.11.2009, were going to board the bus and on way, brother of opposite party No 2 and one unknown person forcibly took away opposite party No 2 with them and according to the statement of petitioner, at that time, opposite party No 2 was pregnant. Therefore, it was the case of the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party No 3 is not his legitimate child and opposite party No 2 is leading adulterous life and due to that, opposite party No 3 born. 5. During the course of recording his statement, the petitioner made an allegation that opposite party No 2 is leading adulterous life with one Pankaj Kumar prior to their marriage but in his written statement, the petitioner has not made any pleading in this regard. If opposite party No 2 was leading adulterous life with Pankaj Kumar prior to the marriage then certainly this fact was mentioned or pleaded by the petitioner in his written statement. 6. If opposite party No 2 was leading adulterous life with Pankaj Kumar prior to the marriage then certainly this fact was mentioned or pleaded by the petitioner in his written statement. 6. Perusal of the impugned order further shows that on 27.01.2010, a written intimation was given by opposite party No 2 that after compromise, she went with the petitioner on 24.11.2009 and resided with the petitioner for some period and then again, petitioner left for his work place leaving opposite party No 2. Thereafter, on 20.03.2010, the petitioner submitted his reply of that application and for the first time, in his reply, he disclosed the fact before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that on 24.11.2009 when the petitioner went to take opposite party No 2 from the Court, opposite party No 2 left the petitioner on way and fled away with her lover. If so, the petitioner has not explained why he has not informed this fact to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on 24.11.2009 or immediately thereafter. 7. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court rightly arrived on the conclusion that opposite party No 2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner; since the petitioner made an allegation against opposite party No 2 that she is leading adulterous life but this fact has not been established by him; he further questioned the legitimacy of opposite party No 3 but this fact has also not been established by the petitioner, therefore, considering the evidence available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court further rightly arrived at the conclusion that opposite party No 3 is the legitimate child of the petitioner. 8. Thus, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court rightly passed the order of maintenance in favour of opposite parties No 2 and 3. 9. I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, this revision petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.