IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.701 of 2008 DHIRAJ KUMAR Versus MUNNI DEVI ----------- 2 29/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would initially urge that the order of the court below fixing maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- is bad because the wife, admittedly on her own showing, was suffering from diseases and as such wife on such handicap will not be entitled for payment of maintenance. This Court would not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner because section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act does not make distinguish regarding wife who is healthy or otherwise. Counsel next contended that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- by way of maintenance is wholly exorbitant. This Court finds that this plea in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act was to be established by the petitioner himself. The onus to prove the special facts relating to his income being within his knowledge was to be discharged by him in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. From the order of the Court below it however transpires that the question of income of the petitioner was gone into on the basis of the evidence on record which after taking into account that the petitioner had substantial income from his employment is an agent of the Life Insurance - 2 - Corporation and also from his family properties had fixed the amount of Rs. 6000/- per month. Such considered order of the court below can not be interfered by this court in exercise of power under Section 115 C.P.C. There being thus no merit in this application, the same is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is directed to pay the amount both arrear and current in the manner it has been directed by the court below in the impugned order within one month of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay