JUDGMENT 1. BY the impugned order the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards the alimony pendente lite of the wife. The propriety of the said order is under challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of the husband/petitioner. 2. HEARD Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the husband/petitioner and Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/wife and considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case. Admittedly, the opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner/husband. Though the husband claimed that wife was sufficient income to maintain herself but he has failed to prove such contention in course of trial of the said proceeding. 3. THE wife claimed that the husband is a businessman and is carrying on business of selling Sarbot in a shop. THE wife also claimed that the husband has various other businesses too. THE wife claims that the husband earns a sum of rupees one lakh approximately per month from his aforesaid businesses. 4. THOUGH the husband denied such allegation of the wife but he has failed to prove that he has no business of his own. The husband/petitioner claimed that his mother was the owner of those business but he did not take any step to prove such contention in course of trial of the said proceeding. The income of the husband/petitioner is within the special knowledge of the husband. As such, the wife is not expected to prove the exact income of the husband. On the contrary, the settled law is that if the husband fails to prove his actual income by evidence, the contention of the wife regarding her husband's income should be presumed to be correct. 5. BE that at it may, considering the amount which was directed to be paid by the husband to the wife on account of her alimony, this Court holds that the said amount is not on excessive amount in consideration of the present price index of the bare necessities. This Court, thus, holds that the revisional application deserves no merit for consideration. The revisional application, thus, stands rejected. 6. This Court, thus, holds that the revisional application deserves no merit for consideration. The revisional application, thus, stands rejected. 6. HOWEVER, time for paying the arrear alimony pendente lite as per order of the learned trial judge upto to the month of October, 2010 is extended till 12th October, 2010. The husband/petitioner is also directed to pay the alimony pendente lite of the wife for the current months commencing from November 2010 onwards regularly till the disposal of the suit, as per the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the parties as expeditiously as possible. P.C.M.