ORDER : The petitioner of this Criminal Revision has challenged the legality of the order dated 22.07.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal (D.V.) No. 14 of 2010 and also the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Criminal Miscellaneous (D.V.) Case no. 12 of 2009, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the present opposite party no.2 Bijali Devi and Rs.1,000/- each to the two minor children-the present opposite party nos. 3 and 4 before 7th of every month and the same shall be effective from the month of the order. Regarding the arrears of interim maintenance, further direction has been given to pay the amount in three installments payable along with maintenance amount. 2. At the instance of the present opposite part no.2 and her minor daughters, a petition under Section 12, 18 and 19 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara with the facts that the opposite party no.2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner, which was solemnized almost about eight years ago and the marriage still subsists and at the time of marriage, cash, motorcycle, gold ornaments and other items were given to the petitioner and she went to her matrimonial home where she was blessed with two female child- opposite party nos. 3 and 4 but the birth of two daughters became the cause of annoyance of the petitioner, her in-laws and family members. Whereafter, the opposite party no.2 was subjected to mental and physical torture. The petitioner and other family members demanded some articles as dowry but as her father was not in a position to meet the demands, the physical and mental torture continued and she was brutally assaulted on several occasions. The petitioner and family members snatched all her ornaments and ousted her from matrimonial home. Finding no alternative, she came back to her father’s house and since then she along with her two minor daughters have been living with her father at village Tiliabani. 3. The petitioner and family members snatched all her ornaments and ousted her from matrimonial home. Finding no alternative, she came back to her father’s house and since then she along with her two minor daughters have been living with her father at village Tiliabani. 3. It appears from the record that at the instance of the present petitioner, a case was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka for restitution of conjugal rights and after appearance of the present opposite party, the case was disposed of on compromise and the opposite party no.2 along with her two daughters went to the house of the petitioner and lived there but due to physical and mental torture, she again came back to her father’s house. Thereafter, a matrimonial suit for divorce was filed by the present petitioner, which has been decreed ex parte. Aggrieved by the said ex parte decree, the opposite party no.2 has already preferred an appeal before this Court, which is still pending. 4. Obviously, the petitioner has not denied the marriage with the opposite party no.2 and has also not denied that the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are not his daughters rather as stated above, suits were filed admitting this opposite party no.2 as his legally wedded wife. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court without considering any material on record allowed the maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and the two minor daughters. He further advanced his argument that opposite party no.2 has developed illicit relationship with some other person and is living in adultery and secondly as without any sufficient reason, she refused to live with this petitioner, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned counsel Mr. Tiwari further seriously contended that the petitioner is a daily wage earner and has no other means and without considering this fact and in absence of any material on record, the trial court allowed the maintenance, which has been affirmed by the appellate court. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submitted that the allegation of adultery is without any basis and not even a chit of paper or evidence has been brought on record to show the complicity of the opposite party no.2 in adultery. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submitted that the allegation of adultery is without any basis and not even a chit of paper or evidence has been brought on record to show the complicity of the opposite party no.2 in adultery. It was also submitted that the court below has awarded a very meager amount as maintenance though the petitioner has several sources of income. 7. After having heard the counsels and upon going through the two impugned judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court and also considering the fact that the petitioner has not denied the factum of marriage between the parties and also the fact that the petitioner has not brought any evidence to show that the opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial house with her own sweet will rather there are evidence that she was subjected to physical and mental torture, I am constrained to hold that the findings recorded by the two courts below do not require any interference by this Court. Admittedly, both parties are living separately but no positive evidence has been brought from the petitioner side except the testimony of one or two witnesses. Though not in a strict term but the onus lies upon the petitioner to prove how much he is earning every day or on monthly basis. Section 106 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is no doubt, the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below and affirmed by the appellate court is a meager amount to meet the requirements of the present days and also not sufficient to cater the needs of two minor children and her mother but as the income of the petitioner has also been found sufficient, there appears to be no plausible ground to interfere in the maintenance amount awarded by the courts. 8. Thus, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity or impropriety in the order impugned passed by the two courts worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, there being no merit in this revision application, it is, hereby, dismissed.