IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1924 of 2008 RAMAN RAI @ RAMAN PRASAD RAI Versus SMT. MEENA DEVI ----------- 2 1.12.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. While this Court would find that the Court below has examined each and every aspect at a great length but the crucial question of quantum of an amount of maintenance has not been gone into in a correct perspective. Once in paragraph no.5 of the impugned order, the court had before it a picture presented by the petitioner emanating from paragraph no. 15 of the statement of defence that the petitioner’s income as a bus driver was not exceeding Rs. 2,000/- per month, it was incumbent for the Court below to find out as to what was the correct income of the petitioner. This the Court below might have done by compelling the petitioner to bring on record the evidence of his income from his employer. Counsel for the petitioner also now submits that he will produce before the Court the cogent evidence both in the form of oral and documentary to show that his income is not that much from which he can afford to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month. In view of the fact that the issue of income of the petitioner has not been gone into in a correct manner, 2 this Court would set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to reconsider the issue. However, this will be done only when the petitioner pays the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month from the month of August, 2008 to December, 2008 to the opposite party as directed by the impugned order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)