IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1358 of 2007 RAJESH PRASAD &RAJESH KUMAR SAHRMA Versus DARAUPADI DEVI ----------- 5 28/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner as against the impugned order awarding Rs.1,000/- per month by way of maintenance pendent-elite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, cannot be looked into in absence of any pleading in this civil revision application disclosing as to what is the income and what is his vocation. This Court, in fact would find that similar was his attitude when the application was filed by wife, opposite party claiming maintenance pendent-elite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act in the court below. There also the petitioner never came out with the correct picture as with regard his occupation and income. The petitioner infact successfully evaded to answer the questions on his income which were actually within his personal knowledge in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. That being so, the petitioner 2 cannot be allowed to take a plea that a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month by way of maintenance is either harsh or excessive. Accordingly, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears and current amount in terms of the impugned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the Court below. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar