ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.2.2015 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and Rs.2000/- lump sum as litigation cost. 3. The claimant-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance as she claims that she is unable to maintain herself. After notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned court below but from the impugned order, it is apparent that he was debarred from filing show cause. It has been alleged by the learned court below that since there is a criminal case pending between the parties, the wife has got reasonable excuse for living separately. 4. So far the quantum of maintenance is concerned, on point no.14 learned court below has made following observation:- “Sufficient means to pay the maintenance: Admittedly, the respondent is a regular employee in BCCL. It is stated that he is getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month and apart from salary, he has got income from agriculture also not controverted to the respondent. Thus, the respondent has got sufficient means to pay monthly allowance.” 5. On the basis of aforementioned fact and materials available before the court, a direction was given to pay Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.2000/- litigation cost. 6. The petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the income of the husband and as such, Rs.5000/- could not have been awarded in absence of such documentary evidence. 7. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement. Thus, there is no pleading of the husband-petitioner on record. Further it is also clear from the judgment that the petitioner has not led any evidence nor controverted the evidence which has been led by the claimant. 8. On instruction, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of BCCL but he is not getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- as alleged by the claimant. 9. Further it is also clear from the judgment that the petitioner has not led any evidence nor controverted the evidence which has been led by the claimant. 8. On instruction, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of BCCL but he is not getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- as alleged by the claimant. 9. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.R. No. 36 of 2007 wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held that while deciding the issue of income in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court should take into consideration the pleading of the parties and since the question of income is a question of fact, it is required to be decided in the light of evidence and for that purpose, the court below had to examine the oral and documentary evidence before coming to conclusion about the income of the opposite party. 10. Relying on the said order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no documentary evidence in this case and as such, the court could not have granted the maintenance amount. 11. I have gone through the order which has been placed before me. On the facts of this case, the order passed in C.R. No. 36 of 2007 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court is not applicable. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner neither filed any show cause nor adduced any evidence to controvert the claim of the claimant. It was the duty of the petitioner to appear before the court and place necessary document in support of his income, if he wanted to controvert the statement made by the claimant in respect of income. That not being done by the petitioner before the court below, at this stage, the petitioner cannot take the plea that as no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the income of the petitioner, the grant of maintenance is bad. Since it has been submitted at Bar that the petitioner is an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the maintenance amount of Rs.5000/- fixed by the court below is reasonable and needs no interference. 13. Since the wife is unable to maintain herself, she is entitled to get the said amount from the husband by way of maintenance. Since it has been submitted at Bar that the petitioner is an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the maintenance amount of Rs.5000/- fixed by the court below is reasonable and needs no interference. 13. Since the wife is unable to maintain herself, she is entitled to get the said amount from the husband by way of maintenance. 14. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and hence, this revision application stands dismissed. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Revision dismissed.