IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.299 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 12.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) granting Rs. 2,000/- by way of monthly maintenance to the wife who has been banished from the life of the petitioner on the ground of adultery cannot be said to be either excessive or illegal. The findings as with regard to adultery is yet to be arrived at in the divorce suit filed by the petitioner and only because a lady has been charged of adultery by the husband, that by itself without being proved isat least a justifiable ground for wife not living together. Such a husband would therefore be liable to pay the amount of maintenance if neglect/cruelty is proved against him. As to what would be the amount of maintenance of course would depend on the monthly income. In the present case, the wife had asserted that the petitioner had a regular income of Rs. 6,000/- being employed in some shop in Kolkata. The petitioner in course of his examination took a plea that true it was that he was working in a shop in Kolkata but then his income was 2 only Rs. 1600/- per month. The onus to prove his income of Rs. 1600/- only was squarely on him in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner however did not produce a chit of paper from an employer to show that despite minimum wage fixed and prevalent in the city of Kolkata, his employer was paying only Rs. 1600/- per month. In that view of the matter, if the Court below has proceeded to disbelieve the story of Rs. 1600/- to the monthly income of the petitioner, it has not committed any such error which can be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this Court would not found any error in the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay both arrear and current amount of maintenance as fixed by the Court below within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court would note the submission of the counsel of the petitioner that there is some compromise in offing by which the petitioner intends to take back the opposite party in his life. If such a situation would arise, it would always be open for the petitioner to approach the Court below under Section 127 of the Code of 3 Criminal Procedure which after recording the statement of both the wife and the husband in this regard would pass an appropriate order amending the order of maintenance. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this civil revision is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)