IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1629 of 2006 RAMESH KUMAR Versus RINKU KUMARI @ RINKU DEVI ----------- 5 11/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the opposite party. In the opinion of this Court the order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to his wife and Rs. 1000/- towards expenses of the proceeding in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be said to be excessive muchless faulted on any account specially when it is found that specific averment of the opposite party, wife with regard to income of the petitioner was not specifically denied by the petitioner. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that even then it was requirement of the law that what ever materials were available on record ought to have been analyzed and considered but that having been done by the Court below, the impugned order should be set aside. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party however has made a short but an effective submission that what would be requirement in a summary proceeding for holding a person liable to pay maintenance would depend on the facts of each and every case. In the preset case according to him when the petitioner did not deny the basic assertion either of his liability or with regard to the income as suggested by wife, 2 opposite party there was no requirement of law that even then the court below ought to have analyzed the matter at a great length. This Court having appreciated the aforementioned rival contentions is of the view that once the petitioner did not choose to specifically deny the factum of income as alleged by the wife opposite party income, a direction to pay Rs. 2000/- per month by the petitioner to his wife and that too for a period of his suit is pending, cannot be said to be either illegal or excessive. Even the amount of cost of litigation quantifying at Rs. 1000/- is not exorbitant or excessive. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. The court below is directed to ensure that arrears and the current amount of maintenance payable by the petitioner, if not already paid by him, must be realized from him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar