JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - This civil revision petition is directed against order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangrur whereby application of the defendant, petitioner herein, for not allowing the plaintiff, respondent herein, to lead evidence in rebuttal, was dismissed. 2. The defendant, petitioner herein, is required to pay maintenance to his wife i.e. the plaintiff, respondent herein, non-payment of which has resulted in accumulation of the amount on which interest is also being claimed by the wife. When the suit reached the last stage, an application was moved by the husband not to allow the wife to lead additional evidence in rebuttal. The husband had been changing his stand quite often. The wife had alleged that in the year 2007 that the husband was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month whereas the husband has claimed that his salary then was only Rs.12,000/- per month. In order to controvert the evidence adduced by the husband, the wife, wanted to produce salary certificate of the husband to bring before the court documentary evidence regarding quantum of salary of the husband so that it may be helpful in deciding the quantum of maintenance to the plaintiff. 3. The main question before the court is the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife by the husband. By way of additional evidence, the wife has only sought production of salary certificate of the husband which in all fairness the husband should have produced himself particularly when he had denied claim of the wife that he was drawing Rs.15,000/- per month and rather had taken up a stand that he was drawing only Rs.12,000/- per month. 4. Counsel for the husband, petitioner herein, has sought reliance from Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others, [2006(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3199 (DB)] : 2007(1) PLR 552 (P&H) and taken his stand that a party cannot be permitted to lead any further evidence in rebuttal on the issues of which the burden of proof was on that party. 5. There is no dispute about the law and there cannot be any. The question concerns payment of maintenance amount to the wife. Quantum is to be fixed. Salary of the husband is to be determined. 5. There is no dispute about the law and there cannot be any. The question concerns payment of maintenance amount to the wife. Quantum is to be fixed. Salary of the husband is to be determined. Claiming his salary as Rs.12,000/- per month, the husband has not produced any document or material forcing the court to call for such material or documentary from the wife which would be necessary for determining the income of the husband for fixing the maintenance amount. Thus, where the court requires some evidence for complete, effective and competent adjudication, the court is not to hesitate in calling for the necessary evidence to determine the question more competently and effectively so that complete adjudication is made and multiplicity of litigation is avoided. 6. In view of the above circumstances, no fault can be found either on facts or in law with the impugned order and affirming the same, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————