IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2346 of 2006 AKHILESH KUMAR Versus PUNAM KUMARI @ PUNAM DEVI @SUNITA DEVI ----------- 2 14.8.2008 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 18.10.2006 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards the monthly maintenance in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Rs. 8000/- in lump-sum by way of cost of litigation, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be said to be either excessive or illegal inasmuch as it has come on record that the petitioner is a Stenographer in the defence service at Delhi and has substantial income. It is true that the petitioner in this civil revision application has taken a plea that the Court below has proceeded on presumption in fixing the income of Rs. 16000/- per month but at the same time, even the petitioner has not stated as to what is his real income and paragraph no.11 only goes to show that the petitioner wants to conceal his income. Be that as it may, these issues were to be raised by the petitioner before the Court below but when he did not produce his current salary statement which could have been by itself the best 2 evidence of his income, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order. Consequently, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The Court below is directed to ensure that the amount of maintenance so fixed by its order along with cost of litigation is realized from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)