JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.08.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 48 of 2012 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance for his wife from the date of the application. 2. Mrs. Swati Shalini, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the salary-slip of the petitioner and submits that take-home salary of the petitioner is Rs. 5,085/- still the monthly maintenance allowance has been fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per month which apparently is unjustified. 3. The learned Family Court Judge has held as under: “Last comes to the question of quantum of maintenance. In order to give finding of the quantum of maintenance, the earning of the opposite party is to be considered. Opposite party is a permanent employee of Telco as he has admitted in his evidence and he has admitted that his net salary is just Rs. 10,000/- per month. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act it was incumbent upon the opposite party to come up with his salary slip as he is the custodian of the same. However, he has deliberately concealed the same. In any view of the matter, even going by the admission of the opposite party that he has net pay of Rs. 10,000/- this court considers it to be just and proper to allow the claim of the applicant whereby she has claimed Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. This amount of maintenance shall be payable from July, 2012 that is the date when the opposite party has appeared in this case and since when he is contesting the case of the applicant. The arrears of maintenance from July, 2012 to July, 2016 i.e. for 49 months shall be realized along with current monthly maintenance to be paid from August, 2016 by adding one month of maintenance from the arrears of maintenance to the current monthly maintenance. Thus, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant from August, 2016 which shall include Rs. 5,000/- per month as current monthly maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- against the arrears of maintenance. The maintenance amount for the month of August, 2016 shall be paid by the end of September, 2016 and thereafter it shall be paid by 15th of every succeeding month. 10,000/- per month to the applicant from August, 2016 which shall include Rs. 5,000/- per month as current monthly maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- against the arrears of maintenance. The maintenance amount for the month of August, 2016 shall be paid by the end of September, 2016 and thereafter it shall be paid by 15th of every succeeding month. After the payment of arrears of maintenance from July, 2012 to July, 2016 current monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- shall be payable.” 4. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on 28.05.2004. The petitioner is employed with M/s Telco and his wife has made various allegations of harassment and torture against him. In the impugned order, the learned Family Court Judge has referred to a complaint case and Matrimonial Suit No. 234 of 2009. It is not in dispute that gross salary of the petitioner is more than Rs. 30,000/- and in the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 48 of 2012 he has admitted that at that time his net salary was Rs. 10,000/- per month. It also needs to be indicated that there are deductions from the salary of the petitioner quantum of which has been fixed by the petitioner himself such as provident fund deductions and therefore his take-home salary does not reflect a correct picture of his income. The order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court Judge is based upon due consideration of the materials brought before him and I do not find any error in approach of the learned Judge. 5. Mrs. Swati Shalini, the learned counsel for the petitioner has next referred to the letter dated 07.02.2017 which has been filed in I.A. No. 3159 of 2017 to submit that Rs.10,000/- per month is deducted from salary of petitioner as if it is the regular maintenance amount. 6. On this aspect, Mr. Sahil, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that the order dated 31.08.2016 is very clear. 7. The letter dated 07.02.2017 reads as under: “To, The Manager finance and Accounts Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur Whereas, vide order date 31.08.2016 maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month was allowed to the applicant payable from July, 2012. 6. On this aspect, Mr. Sahil, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that the order dated 31.08.2016 is very clear. 7. The letter dated 07.02.2017 reads as under: “To, The Manager finance and Accounts Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur Whereas, vide order date 31.08.2016 maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month was allowed to the applicant payable from July, 2012. The arrears of maintenance from July, 2012 to July, 2016 i.e. for 49 months was to be paid from August, 2016 by adding one month's maintenance from the arrears of maintenance to the current monthly maintenance. Thus the O.P. Bijay Kumar Singh had to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from August, 2016 and onwards till realization of arrears, but till date compliance has not been made. Now the arrears amounts to Rs. 50,000/- only till December 2016. You are hereby directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only towards arrears of maintenance till December, 2016 along with regular maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month from Jan. 2017 and onwards from the salary of the Opposite Party Bijay Kumar Singh S/o Deep Narayan Singh bearing I. No. 6277/90307/2, Department-world Truck Factory and credit the same in the bank account of the applicant Kamala Singh bearing A/c No. 450110510002435 of Bank of India, Telco Branch, Jamshedpur. Xerox copy of passbook of the applicant is attached herewith for ready reference. You are called upon to inform this court at the earliest with respect tot the follow up action. Sd/- Principal Judge, Family Court Jamshedpur, dated 07.02.2017.” 8. From the maintenance order dated 31.08.2016 it is apparent that the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and further Rs. 5,000/- per month has been ordered on account of arrears of maintenance which had accumulated for 49 months by that time. 9. With this clarification, Criminal Revision No. 1507 of 2016 is dismissed. 10. I.A. Nos. 1639 of 2017 and 3159 of 2017 stand disposed of.