IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1655 of 2006 SUBHASH KUMAR SAH Versus RADHA RANI ----------- 3 11/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party despite service of notice. The court below has fixed maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month for his wife, Rs. 1,000/- for minor children and Rs. 500/- per month towards cost of litigation. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforementioned order of the court below has submitted that when it was specific case of the petitioner that his entire income as a street vendor ( Feribala ) was Rs. 700/- to 1000/- per month, the impugned directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month was uncalled for, excessive and in fact illegal. This Court would have been impressed by such submission but then there is a clear statement on record of the opposite party, wife, who in paragraph 6 of her application had clearly stated that not only the petitioner was earning man while doing the work of manager of petrol pump at Kishanganj but has also income from his other business of telephone booth and kirana shop for which he 2 was also employed servants and has income and earning capacity of Rs. 12,000/- per month approximately. Apart from that it has also come in evidence that the petitioner has 10 Bighas of cultivated agricultural land from which he earns Rupees one lac per year and that the petitioner has a built up pukka house by way of comfortable accommodation and has also four shops and some other homestead land and from such source his monthly income is Rs. 20,000/-. It is in this background that the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 3 in this court below on the point of his monthly income has to be tested where all that has been suggested is that the petitioner was earlier working as counter man in a patrol pump and now he is working as Feribala with income of Rs. 700/- to 1000/- per month. The petitioner has neither denied the fact that he has 10 bighas of land nor denied that he has substantial income from other sources. Thus on an over all analysis of the materials on record it becomes clear that the petitioner has not given correct statement regarding his income and in that situation this Court will not find any reason to 3 interfere with the impugned order which only fixed liability of Rs. 2,500/- for maintenance of his wife and minor children and Rs. 500/- per month as litigation cost. In that view of the matter, this application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The interim order dated 8.1.2007 is hereby vacated and the petitioner is directed to pay the arrear amount within a period of three months from today and the current amount from month to month basis, as has been directed by the court below in the impugned order. Abhay ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )