IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.843 of 2025 ====================================================== Purushottam Kumar S/o Late Laxman Mahto, R/o Village- Dedhua, P.O.- Sukki, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sumitra Devi D/O Kishori Chaudhary, W/O Purushottam Kumar R/O Village- Dedhua, P.O.- Sukki, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali. At Present C/O Kishori Chaudhary, R/O Vill and P.O.- Manohar Chapra, P.S.- Baruraj, Dist.- Muzaffarpur- 843111 3. Nikhil Kumar S/O Purushottam Kumar M/O Sumitra Devi. R/O Village- Dedhua, P.O.- Sukki, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali. At Present C/O Kishori Chaudhary, R/O Vill and P.O.- Manohar Chapra, P.S.- Baruraj, Dist.- Muzaffarpur- 843111 ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Hafiz Shahbaz Arif, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No. 113 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned Family Court allowed the interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is not sustainable and the petitioner is not in position to make payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 in terms of the impugned order. The petitioner is to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.843 of 2025(3) dt.30-06-2026 2/2 make payment of installment for the loan taken by the petitioner from his salary which is Rs. 36,645/- per month, but this fact was not considered by the learned trial Court. 4. From perusal of record I find that the learned trial Court passed the order for making payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 on the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner herein, that “respondents can pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the petitioners” therein. If the order of interim maintenance was passed with the consent of the learned counsel, who made is submission on instruction of the petitioner, the petitioner is not allowed to assail the said order before this Court in revision, that too, without showing any infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 5. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. Shahnawaz/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T