JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND The instant criminal revision is on behalf of petitioners against the judgment dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No. 48 of 2017 under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC' ) whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/-per month to the petitioner-wife and Rs.1,500/-each to minor children. 2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that maintenance petition under section 125 of Cr.PC was moved on behalf of the petitioners Nilam Seth seeking maintenance herself and for her two minor children petitioner nos.2 and 3 namely, Aryan Seth and Akanshi Seth respectively with these averments that she was married with Ajay Seth on 06.12.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of the said wedlock she was blessed with two minor children who are now 8 years and 11 years old. The opposite party no.2 in influence of his parents began to make demand of Rs.2 lacs and a motorcycle. Inability for the same was shown by the petitioner, the panchayat was also held in which no settlement was arrived and the petitioner has to file the case under section 498A of IPC which was registered at P.S. Case No. 1 of 2016. At the stage of bail in that case it was settled out from court that Ajay Seth will keep his wife alongwith two minor children in a rented house at Koderma; but after living for some time on 18.04.2017 he left the very house leaving the petitioner and two minor children. The opposite party has a house in Jhumritelaiya City. He also earns Rs.40,000/-to Rs.45,000/-per month from the sale of medicines and gets rent of Rs.36,000/-per month of the three shops which are given on rent. In view of the above claimed the maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/-for herself and two minor children. 3. On behalf of opposite party the reply of the show cause was filed in which he denied the allegations made in the maintenance application and stated that he never made any demand of the dowry and tortured to the petitioner for the same. The parents of the opposite party are too old ages. 3. On behalf of opposite party the reply of the show cause was filed in which he denied the allegations made in the maintenance application and stated that he never made any demand of the dowry and tortured to the petitioner for the same. The parents of the opposite party are too old ages. The petitioner is a labourer however he earns bread for the family to make the both hands meet. The opposite party has no such property as alleged in the maintenance petition. In view of the above prayed to dismiss the maintenance application. 4. On behalf of petitioner in oral evidence examined PW1 Nilam Seth, PW2-Jageshwar Ram. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of petitioner. 5. On behalf of opposite party in oral evidence examined DW1Vinay Kumar Sinha, DW2-Sanjay Burnerjee, DW3-Gopal Kumar Sonkar, DW4-Rohit Bhatiya, DW5-Ajay Seth and DW6-Vijay Kumar Soni. On behalf of opposite party in documentary evidence filed, the receipt of payment voucher of Purnima Talkies, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma in regard to the wages being given to him exhibit-Y dated 07.09.2021, exhibit-Y1 dated 14.09.2021, exhibit-Y2 dated 30.09.2021, exhibit-Y3 dated 21.09.2021, exhibit-Y4 dated 06.03.2022, exhibit-Y5 dated 14.03.2022, exhibit-Y6 dated 18.03.2022, exhibit-Y7 dated 27.03.2022, exhibit-Y8 dated 31.03.2022 and exhibit-A temporary appointment letter dated 27.08.2021. 6. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma after hearing the rival submission of parties passed the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2022. 7. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment the instant criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is bad in the eye of law. The learned lower court did not rely the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner-wife in which she specifically stated that the opposite party earns Rs.40,000/-to Rs.45,000/-per month as a Medical Representative and he has also income out of the rents as he has given three shops on rent. The receipts in regard to the wages which were adduced on behalf of the opposite party are the fake indeed the opposite party-husband is not the labourer as such the quantum of the maintenance as awarded by the learned court below is not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and prayed to allow this criminal revision and to set aside the impugned judgment and also prayed to enhance the maintenance amount from the amount as awarded by the learned court below. 8. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. For disposal of this criminal revision following point of determination is being framed: (i) whether the quantum of the maintenance amount awarded for the petitioner-wife and two minor children is proportionate in view of the income of the opposite party-husband and also his liabilities towards his family? 9. On this point of determination it would be pertinent to reproduce the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 9.1 PW1-Nilam Seth in her examination-in-chief says that her husband is the whole-seller of the medicine. He earns Rs.45,000/-to Rs.50,000/-per month. He also carries on general store. From which, he has good income and the shops are also given on rent from which the income is also arisen to the opposite party. Both the children Aryan Seth 8 years old and Akanshi Seth 11 years old are residing with her and she has no other source of income to maintain herself and her minor children. In cross-examination this witness says that she has no documentary evidence in regard to the being whole-sale seller of the medicine and carrying on the general store by the opposite party. Earlier Ajay Seth had carried on business in the name and style of Ajay Pharma. She does nothing and does not teach in any school. 9.2 PW2-Jogeshwar Ram is the father of petitioner Nilam Seth and says that his son-in-law is a businessman. He is whole-seller of the medicine, earns Rs.40,000/-to Rs.45,000/-per month. He also gets Rs.15,000/-per month from the rent of his shop and also gets Rs.15,000/-per month from the grocery shop. He has also agricultural land 1.5 acres. In cross-examination this witness says he has not adduced any documentary evidence in regard to the 1.5 acres agricultural land of opposite party and also in regard to the shop being carried on by him and rented shop as well. 10. On this point of determination on behalf of opposite party examined. 10.1 DW-1 Vinay Kumar Sinha, this witness in his examination-in-chief says earlier Ajay seth was carrying shop of the medicine now he is helper of a electric mechanic and he gets Rs.250/-or Rs.300/-per day. Ajay Seth has no agricultural land. In cross-examination this witness says earlier Ajay Seth used to sell the medicines. It is wrong to say that he runs the shop for cosmetic items. Ajay Seth has no agricultural land. In cross-examination this witness says earlier Ajay Seth used to sell the medicines. It is wrong to say that he runs the shop for cosmetic items. It is also wrong to say that Ajay Seth also gets income from the rented shop. It is wrong to say that the income of Ajay Seth is Rs.40,000/-to Rs.50,000/-per month. This witness further says that Ajay Seth does service in Purnima Talkies, he gets Rs.330/-per day. The appointment letter issued on behalf of Purnima Talkies is in the signature of the owner of Purnima Talkies namely, Pankaj Kumar Badani. He identifies his signature marked exhibit-A. The photo copy of the payment voucher dated 07.09.2021, 14.09.2021, 21.09.2021, 30.09.2021, 06.03.2022, 14.03.2022, 18.03.2022, 27.03.2022, 31.03.2022 marked exhibit-Y to Y8 were issued by Purnima Talkies he identifies them. This witness further says he is not aware in regard to the liabilities of Ajay Seth. Earlier Ajay Seth was Medical Representative. It is wrong to say that still he is Medical Representative. 10.2 DW-2 Sanjay Banerjee in his examination-in-chief says Ajay Seth was helper. He gets Rs.250/-per day. He gets job 15-20 days in a month. Ajay Seth has no landed property. It is wrong to say that Ajay Seth has cosmetic shop and has income of Rs. 40,000/-to Rs.50,000/-. It is wrong to say that Ajay Seth has no rented income. 10.3 DW-3 Gopal Kumar Sonkar in his examination-in-chief says that Ajay Seth is helper of electrician. He gets Rs.250/-per day. He has no shop and no landed property. In cross-examination this witness says that it is wrong to say that there are three shops at Jhanda Chowk of Ajay Shop from which he gets Rs.36,000/-per month. 10.4 DW-4 Rohit Bhatia in his examination-in-chief says that Ajay Seth is helper of electrician and gets Rs.250/-per day. He has no landed property or shop. In cross-examination this witness says that he is not aware whether there are the shops at Jhanda Chowk from which Ajay Seth gets Rs.36,000/-per month from rent. It is wrong to say that Ajay Seth does business of medicine and gets Rs.40,000/-to Rs.45,000/-per month. 10.5 DW-5 Ajay Seth in his examination-in-chief says that he is helper of electrician and gets Rs.250/-per day. He gets job 15 to 20 days in a month. It is wrong to say that Ajay Seth does business of medicine and gets Rs.40,000/-to Rs.45,000/-per month. 10.5 DW-5 Ajay Seth in his examination-in-chief says that he is helper of electrician and gets Rs.250/-per day. He gets job 15 to 20 days in a month. In cross-examination this witness says the shop in the name and style of Ajay Pharma was never run by him. There is no three storied house in Jhumritelaiya of him. It is wrong to say that he is whole-seller or retailer of the medicine. It is wrong to say that he runs general store. It is wrong to say that he gets Rs.36,000/-per month of the rent of rented property and earns Rs.40,000/-to Rs.45,000/-per month. This witness further in examination-in-chief on being recall says that he gets Rs.330/-per days from Purnima Talkies, Jhumritelaiya. He gets job 20 to 22 days. The landed property was in the name of his mother in which the house is situated. The receipt issued by the Purnima Talkies are being filed by him wherein he gets Rs.330/-per day. His receipts are from 07.09.2021 to 21.04.2022. These payment vouchers were filled up by the Manager of Purnima Talkies Vinay Kumar Sinha. The owner of the same is Mr. Pankaj Kr. Badani. This witness in further cross-examination says that Purnima Talkies is the private institution. It is wrong to say that these receipts are forged. 10.6 DW-6 Vijay Kumar Soni in his examination-in-chief says Ajay Seth does work in Purnima Talkies. He gets Rs.330/-per day. He has no landed property. He has only house which is in name of his mother. In cross-examination this witness says earlier Ajay Seth was doing job of Medical Representative. He used to sell the medicine from his very house. 11. From the perusal of the evidence on behalf of both the parties adduced it is proved that earlier Ajay Seth was doing business of sale of wholesale medicines as a Medical Representative. But there is no cogent evidence that still he is doing job of Medical Representative. 12. Certainly the income of the opposite party is in particular knowledge of opposite party and burden of proof also lies upon him to prove in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. On behalf of the opposite party in his reply of the show cause notice it has been averred that he is labourer. 12. Certainly the income of the opposite party is in particular knowledge of opposite party and burden of proof also lies upon him to prove in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. On behalf of the opposite party in his reply of the show cause notice it has been averred that he is labourer. He gets Rs.250/-per day and gets job 20 to 25 days in a month oral. In testimony of all the witnesses adduced on behalf of the opposite party proved that at present the opposite party is a helper of electrician. Earlier he was getting Rs.250/-per day but at present he says that he is getting Rs.330/-per day. The receipt issued by the owner of the Purnima Talkies, Jhumritelaiya are verified by the Manager Vinay Kumar Sinha-DW1 and these receipts are given of more than 2 months or 3 months each respectively. Vinay Kumar Sinha-DW1 has stated that these receipts were issued by the owner Mr. Pankaj Kr. Badani. 13. So far as the income of the opposite party from the rented property or agricultural land is concerned as averred in the pleadings by the petitioner-wife and also deposed in her statement by PW1-Nilam Seth before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court; the same was also deposed by her father-PW2; but to that effect no documentary evidence has been adduced; while on behalf of opposite party same fact is denied in toto. On behalf of opposite party six witnesses were examined and all the witnesses have stated that opposite party has no landed property and no such property from which he gets the income of rent rather all the six witnesses had deposed that he has income as a helper of an electrician. 14. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has assessed the income of the opposite party Rs.15,000/-per month on the basis of the guess-work. Admittedly the wife is doing nothing. The two minor children are also residing with her. From the evidence it is also found that the opposite party also maintains his old ages mother and father. He has also liability to maintain them. In view of the income as assessed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court the maintenance amount was awarded for the petitioner no.1-wife Rs.3,000/-per month and Rs.1,500/-per month each for the two minor children. 15. He has also liability to maintain them. In view of the income as assessed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court the maintenance amount was awarded for the petitioner no.1-wife Rs.3,000/-per month and Rs.1,500/-per month each for the two minor children. 15. In view of the above the maintenance awarded by the court below appears to be proportionate in view of the income of the opposite party and also his liabilities. As such the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below needs no interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 16. The criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned court below is affirmed. 17. Let the record of learned court below be sent back alongwith copy of the judgment.