The husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children, as well as the importance of providing evidence to support allegations in family law cases.

ORDER :

The petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Aggrieved by order dated 31.01.2017 in M.C.No.420/2013 passed by the court below directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/-to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the third respondent, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

3. Heard.

4. The first respondent contended that the first respondent is unemployed. She is also having no source of income for her livelihood. The first respondent also contended that the petitioner herein is having property worth rupees more than fifty lakh, from which he is getting income. The first respondent further contended that the petitioner is having employment abroad, drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/-per month.

5. The petitioner had contended that the first respondent herein is having job. It was further contended by the petitioner herein that the petitioner is presently having no job. It was further contended by the petitioner that the first respondent had illicit relationship with a person, namely, Praveen and hence the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance to the first respondent.

6. Apart from the ipse dixit of RW1, there is absolutely no material before the court to show that the first respondent had any illicit relationship as alleged by the petitioner. The court below rightly found that there is no material before the court to substantiate the allegation in this regard raised by the petitioner herein.

7. Even though the petitioner contended that the first respondent is having job, there is absolutely no material before the court to show that she is having any job. When the petitioner contended that the first respondent had job, it was the duty of the petitioner to produce materials to substantiate the same. The contention of the first respondent that she is not having any job cannot be proved by producing any document, as calling upon the first respondent to prove the same will tantamount to directing the first respondent to adduce negative evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner was working abroad. The petitioner could have adduced evidence before the court that he lost his employment abroad. However, even though the petitioner had contended that he lost his job abroad and that he is not having any job at present, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner herein, a part from his oral evidence, to support the same. There is also no contention that the petitioner is not an able-bodied person. Having gone through the relevant in puts, I am satisfied that the court below was right in holding that the petitioner willfully neglected to maintain the first respondent. Since the marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent is admitted, the petitioner is bound to maintain her. The paternity of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is also admitted. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to maintain them also. The third respondent is a minor child. He is a student. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the expenses needed for the food, education, clothing and other welfare activities of the third respondent, and also the expenses needed to the wife, the court below had awarded an amount of Rs.4,000 per month to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to the third respondent.

Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the amount awarded by the court below is not at all exorbitant or unreasonable. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

In the result, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.

Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had already deposited any amount before the court in connection with this case, the said amount shall be released to the first respondent for and on behalf of the first and the third respondents.