IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1979 of 2007 SATYA NARAIN PRADHAN Versus SMT.DHARICHANA DEVI ----------- 2. 1.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the amount of Rs. 2000/- by way of monthly maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be either illegal or excessive. The grievance of the petitioner that the court below has not considered the question of income and that such finding was recorded without referring any evidence has to be noticed only for its being rejected. In this context it would be found from the application filed by the wife opposite party that in paragraph 3 of her application she had made specific case with regard to income of the petitioner. Paragraph 3 reads as follows : ^^ vkosfndk ds ifr i<+s fy[ks O;fDr gSa vkSj , + th + vkWfQl jkWaph esa ,dkmUVsUV ds in ij dk;Z djrs Fks vkSj mlh in ls fjVk;j Hkh dj x, gSa vkSj djhc 4]800 :I;k jkfÓ ckn cspus isUlu dk :i;k jkWph ls gh izkir djrs Fks ftls V~zkUlQj djkdj bykgkckn cSad] Hkkstiqj esa yk, gSa tks uht xzke ls utnhd iM+rk gS tks vHkh izfdz;k esa py jgk gS A vykos blds vkosfndk ds ifr dks ek:lh tehu 10 ch?kk xzke NksVdk <+dkbZp esa vkSj jkWaph esa tehu 24 dV~Bk gS ftlesa fjgk;Óh edku vkafÓd :i ls gS A vkSj bteky ifjokj ds os ekfyd gSa vr% mudh vkfFkZd gkyr vPNh gS A ** 2 Counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court also the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the aforementioned application. From perusal of the same it would appear that while statement contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6 were dealt with either sought to be admitted or controverted the crucial statement made in paragraph 3 as extracted above has not even been touched by the petitioner. The presumption, therefore, would be that whatever facts stated by the wife as with regard to income of the petitioner were admitted facts. That being so, if the court below has passed an order granting Rs. 2000/- per month by way of maintenance to a 70 years old lady, the same cannot be declared to be illegal by this Court only because the petitioner would contend that he is aged about 80 years or that his land in Ranchi of 24 kathas or is other acquisition at his ancestral home or his pension after commutation would not give sufficient earning so as to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month. There being absolutely no error in 3 the impugned order, this application infact is itself frivolous. The petitioner has admittedly not paid the amount of maintenance so fixed by the court below in the impugned order till date and therefore, he is directed to do so within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in the court below. In case the petitioner does not deposit either the arrear or current amount within the period of aforesaid one month it will be open for the opposite party to initiate a proceeding of contempt against the petitioner before this Court. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/