IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.704 of 2008 DR. KAUSHAL KISHORE KUMAR Versus KABITA KUMARI @ KABITA DEVI ----------- 4 6/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Reference may be made to the order dated 22.9.2008 and the subsequent order dated 15.10.2008. Despite repeated indulgence given by this Court the petitioner seems to be not inclined in giving true information about his real income. This Court by an order dated 22.9.2008 with a view to test the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as with regard to quantum of the amount of compensation had directed the petitioner to produce relevant papers relating to his income in the following terms: “Let the petitioner produce his income tax return with Pan number of the year 1993-94 onwards from Surat where he is practicing as Allopath practitioner. In such affidavit the petitioner will be obliged to not only enclose the annual return from the year 1994 to this date but also be obliged to reveal what was his income from the year 1994 from all the sources as 2 also what is his present income from all sources.” When the case was placed again on 15.10.2008 counsel for the petitioner had sought adjournment for producing the aforementioned information and documents. Such prayer was allowed by an order dated 15.10.2008 but even today the order of this Court dated 22.9.2008 has not been complied and no paper whatsoever has been produced which could have reflected the true monthly income of the petitioner. This Court is, accordingly, satisfied that the special fact with regard to knowledge of income being in possession of the petitioner in terms of section 106 of the Evidence Act has been sought to be concealed. That being so, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.6000/- per month as awarded by the court below by way of maintenance pendenti lite in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act during the pendency of Divorce Suit No. 121/2005 is neither arbitrary nor excessive. This Court has in 3 fact considered the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.3.2008 and would find no such error which could be interfered by this Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently this application is wholly misconceived and must be dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay the amount both arrear and current within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order by the court below. In the event such amount either by way of arrear or current as directed in the impugned order is not paid, the court below will take appropriate coercive measure to ensure that the wife opposite party is paid the amount of maintenance in terms of the impugned order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar