MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI MAKWANA Vs. DIMPLEBEN MANOJBHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present application is the judgment and order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.352 of 2011 whereby, the learned Family Judge has awarded amount of maintenance of Rs.6000/ - per month in favour of opponent No.1 and amount of Rs.4000/ - per month in favour of opponent No.2 to be paid by the present applicant -husband. Thus, total amount of maintenance to be paid per month comes to Rs.10,000/ -.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr.Tolia appearing for the applicant ventilates grievance that the amount of maintenance, as awarded by the learned Family Court, is on higher side because the applicant is hardly earning Rs.1500/ - by doing business of repairing of mobile phones whereas, on the other hand, opponent No.1 -wife ascertained before the learned Family Court that the applicant is doing business of computer and mobile and thus, the applicant is earning about Rs.50,000/ - per month.

(3.) UNDER the circumstances, it would be appropriate to call upon the parties to prove such things by production of relevant evidence. On perusal of the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge while answering issue Nos.3 and 4, it appears that the learned Family Judge assessed the daily income of the applicant at Rs.800/ - and further, multiplied by 25 working days and thus, arrived at the amount of Rs.20,000/ - per month. The entire exercise undertaken by the learned Family Judge is solely based upon presumption and in absence of any evidence adduced by the party so as to justify the daily income of the applicant at Rs.800/ -. So, it would be appropriate to modify the impugned order by remanding the matter to the Family Court, Rajkot for reconsideration only on the issue of quantum of amount of maintenance because it is not possible even for this Court to fix the maintenance amount without any cogent evidence regarding income of the applicant, who is reluctant to disclose his correct income. Therefore, considering the attitude of the applicant -husband, while leading evidence on oath before the trial Court and in absence of proof of his income by cogent evidence, it is difficult to arrive at any specific conclusion regarding income of the applicant and to arrive at the amount, which can be awarded to the opponent Nos.1 and 2 as maintenance.