IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.63 of 2008 ARBIND KUMAR VERMA Versus SANJU DEVI ----------- 2 05.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 1500/- by way of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be said to be illegal specially when it is sought to be assailed on a solitary ground that there was no sufficient proof before the Court below for recording the income of the petitioner. Mr. Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact, no finding also has been recorded to this effect in the impugned order. It is however not denied by Mr. Shukla that the petitioner is an agent of Life Insurance of India. It was the plea of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month and therefore, was not in a position to maintain his wife. If that be so this fact of his earning, in fact was within his special knowledge in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It was thus for him to discharge his onus by producing his annual income statement of his earnings made from the commission earned from the policies that he had sold as agent of Life Insurance 2 Corporation of India. It was also not difficult for the petitioner to get such statements from the concerned office of Life Insurance Corporation of India. He however having failed to discharge his onus cannot blame the Court for not recording the evidence which infact had no option but to rely the uncontroverted statement made by the wife. Be that as it may, it is only an interim order and the petitioner will be at liberty to raise the question of income in the main proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner will also have a liberty to prove this fact that the wife has sufficient income from her own source by being an employed as a Nurse. All that however, would happen in future but at present the petitioner must pay the amount of maintenance so fixed by the impugned order and 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 the amount as mentioned in the impugned order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order the Court below is directed to ensure that both arrears and current amount so fixed by the impugned order must be realized from the petitioner within a period of next three month from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Court below for this purpose will also be at liberty to take coercive action against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)