IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.980 of 2006 BINOD KUMAR SONOF DEOKI RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANOHARPUR KACHHUARA AT PRESENT P.S.- GAURICHAK OLD P.S.- PHULWARISHARIF, DIST. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEENA DEVI, W/O- BINOD KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANOHARPUR KACHHUARA AT PRESENT P.S- GAURICHAK OLD, P.S.- PHULWARISARIF, DIST. PATNA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE DEORA DHANKI P.S.- POONPOON, DIST. PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Gajanan Mishra, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Puspa Sinha, APP ----------- 8 21.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is husband of O.P. no. 2, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna whereby the application filed by the applicant (O.P. no. 2 ) under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short the Code) has been allowed. Facts leading to the present case may be summarized as under: Petitioner (husband) is legally wedded wife of O.P. no. 2. He refused to maintain the wife who was thus living separately. Consequently, the wife (O.P. no. 2) made an application under Section 125 of the Code seeking maintenance. Said matter was considered in the light of the evidence brought on record by the parties and by an order dated 1.7.1989 a sum of Rs. 150/- was granted as maintenance in favour of the applicant (wife). In the year 2002, the applicant (wife) made an application under Section 2 127 of the Code seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance. The petitioner (husband) was noticed and was directed to file rejoinder to the said claims. In spite of notice, he did not file his rejoinder. Learned trial court has noted as under in paragraph 8 of the order: “8. The opp. party has appeared in the proceeding but in spite of repeated directions has not filed his rejoinder denying the claim of the petitioner regarding his own source of income or the increase of maintenance amount in view of the escalation of the price of daily needs….” In order to substantiate the claim, the wife (O.P. no. 2) adduced evidence. The husband (petitioner) was permitted to adduce evidence and thereafter two witnesses including himself were examined in the case. It appears that a specific case was made out in the application that she has grown old and requires medical assistance. The income of the husband (petitioner herein) had increased. He had opened a Kirana shop in the township of Patna from which he was earning atleast a sum of Rs. 200-300 per day. The husband in his deposition as D.W. 1 stated that he is a Thela Puller and his total earning is Rs. 1500/-. The said claim of the petitioner was considered by the court below and it has been found that he had made an attempt to conceal his amount of income by taking a fake plea without filing any objection/rejoinder to the claim of the wife (petitioner). It was found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the wife (O.P. herein) remained uncontroverted. This is what the learned trial court has observed in paragraph 14 of the order. “The petitioner has also taken the name of Kirana 3 shop which is run by the opp. Party but the opp. Party in his deposition has not denied the fact that the shop being run in the said name and style does not belong to him. Simple denial can not be taken as denial of the fact when there is specific assertion that said shop does not exist. It is also well known that whenever the witness discloses any source of income of her husband then the latter is bound to come before the Court with clean chest and disclose his real source of income and if he fail to do so then adverse inference can be drawn against him. The entire deposition of the opp. Party clearly point out that he has been one way or the other trying to conceal his source of income and in that situation the Court is compelled to draw inference that opp. Party has not only got landed property but also a Kirana shop named as Vindyawasini Kirana Stores at Gandhi Nagar, near T.V. tower, Kankarbagh, Patna from which he has been getting Rs. 200-300/- profit per day i.e. Rs. 6000/- profit per month.” It appears from the order impugned that the court below has also taken into consideration the materials available on record in order to hold that the wife (O.P. no. 2 herein) now requires medical assistance. The claim of the wife that in addition to running a kirana shop, the petitioner (husband ) also held 40 bighas of agricultural land. Having considered this aspect of the matter, it has been found that in the changed circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for enhancement was justified. Considering the income of the petitioner at least from the Kirana Shop, it has been found and held that the petitioner’s wife is entitled to enhancement of maintenance amount which was earlier granted to her as a sum of Rs. 150/- way back in the year 1989. Consequently, learned Court below has allowed the application and ordered for payment of Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance amount. 4 Having heard both sides and after going through the materials on record including the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the order does not merit any interference. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )