The burden lies on the husband to prove his income in maintenance cases; failure to do so results in adverse inferences impacting his entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The affidavit filed by the husband is taken on record. The parties would be referred as husband and wife.

3. The challenge is raised to the judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. The wife has challenged the said order by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 856/2024, and the husband has challenged the same by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1001/2024. Both the petitions are taken up together for final disposal.

4. The learned counsel for the wife submits that the findings of the Sessions Court in Appeal are perverse as the order of the Trial Court has been modified by granting maintenance amount to wife from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and to son from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Further, the amount was modified in respect of compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. He submits that the findings are not based upon the evidence which was placed on record, it is based on surmises and presumptions. There are three different versions given by the husband. First, in the evidence he has admitted that he has a business which he runs along with his brother. Second version is in the affidavit of assets and liability that states he is not getting any income. The third version is that he has filed affidavit before this Court stating that he is working with A.K. Textiles, wherein, salary certificate issued by the said company goes to show that he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the Appellate Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against him. He further submits that the trial Court had after apprreciating the entire evidence rightly granted maintenance to wife and child along with compensation. The grounds on which the Appellate Court has modified the order is that the husband is residing in a rented premises and there is no servant working in his shop which is illogical and unreasonable. Accordingly, he submits that the Appellate Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. Lastly, he prayed that his Writ Petition No. 856/2024 be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha.

5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the husband vehemently submits that time and again, husband has placed on record salary certificate issued by A.K. Textiles which shows that he is getting only Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submits that admittedly the husband is residing in the rented premises and whatever establishment he was running along with his brother, at present, is not running the said shop, as there was family settlement, and in that family settlement, the shop at present is being run by the brother of the husband and the husband has disclosed true facts before this Court. The Appellate Court, after considering the entire evidence, has rightly passed maintenance order only to the extent of son. However, insofar as the wife is concerned, the Appellate Court committed error in not considering the fact that she is also earning income by doing business of online jewellery. Further, he submits that she is working as a Manager in the Nirmal Bakery at Wardha, and therefore, she is getting a handsome salary. He further invited my attention to the evidence, and in cross-examination he stated that there is no servant working in the shop run jointly with his brother. The Appellate Court, so far as the income of the husband is concerned, has rightly dealt with the issue. He further submits that as the husband is not having any source of i