S PRIYA Vs. K SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 25.07.2008, passed by the learned I Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No,2794 of 2007 in O.P.No,725 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) BOTH sides called absent.

(3.) A mere perusal of the judgment of the lower Court would demonstrate and exemplify that admittedly the husband is earning a sum of Rs.17,200/- per month as per his Salary Certificate. Obviously for the purpose of burking the deduction particulars, the husband has not chosen to obtain from his employer the certificate, which would contain the deduction particulars and file it in Court. In such a case, the Family Court should have drawn adverse inference as against the husband by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even though the husband was capable of producing the deduction particulars in an authentic manner, he has not chosen to furnish the same. On the other hand, the Family Court simply based on the counter filed by the husband inferred as though a sum of Rs.4,526/- per month is being deducted from his salary towards the personal loan availed by him and that there would be deductions under other captions such as petrol expenses, mobile phone charges etc. Without any rhyme or reason, the Family Court simply held as though the husband's take home salary was only Rs.10,000/-. Legally speaking, the alleged deduction towards personal loan to a tune of Rs.4,526/- per month cannot be taken as one to be deducted for computing the financial wherewithal of the husband to pay interim maintenance to the wife and the child. Even though the lower Court simply held that his take home pay was Rs.10,000/- per month, nonetheless, it awarded interim maintenance only to a tune of Rs.2,000/- per month towards the wife and Rs.1,000/- towards the child which would constitute not even one third of his alleged take home salary.