IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2042 of 2008 MD. WAKIL @ SAFIUR RAHMAN Versus KAMRUN NISA & ORS ----------- 2. 10.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in I.A.No. 7192/2008 the delay in filing of this civil revision application is condoned. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order, inasmuch as the wife and three minor children admittedly have to be maintained. A sum of Rs. 2500/- by way of maintenance in that view of the matter cannot be said to be either illegal or excessive. The submission of Mr. Rajeeva Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was employed in a shop and was not capable to even affording a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month by way of maintenance for a wife and three children has to be noted for its being rejected. The question of income being a special fact within the knowledge of the petitioner; it was for the petitioner to discharge such onus in terms of section 106 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner having 2 failed to discharge that onus the view taken by the court below for maintenance of a family of four persons, wife and three children, by quantifying at Rs. 2500/- is neither excessive nor illegal. That being so, this application is misconceived and is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/