When a party claims a specific income during maintenance proceedings but fails to produce documentary evidence (like salary slips) to substantiate that claim, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference and assessing maintenance based on earning capacity.

Order on Board

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It Is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to Diminish the maintenance amount from Rs 3,000 Monthly to 1,000 Rs. Monthly and to modify the maintenance award dated 18.03.2026, Passed By Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg, District :-Durg, in RAHUL DEWANGAN Miscellaneous Judicial Cases No. 1442/2024

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

in Case of Smt. Heena Vs. Shivam Madame which is (ANNEXURE A/1), This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass Such order as it may deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant/husband, Shivam Madame, and the non-applicant/wife, Smt. Heena, was solemnized on 05.06.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Bital, Dallirajhara, District Balod. After the marriage, the non-applicant/wife started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial home; however, disputes arose between the parties soon thereafter. It is the case of the non- applicant/wife that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the applicant and his family members in connection with alleged demand of dowry, including cash and household articles, and that the applicant, under the influence of alcohol, used to abuse and assault her, ultimately demanding an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for permitting her to reside in the matrimonial home. Due to the alleged continuous harassment, the non-applicant/wife left the matrimonial home on 30.06.2023 and has since been residing at her parental house. It is further stated that despite efforts for reconciliation, including social meetings and complaints before the Women Police Station, no settlement could be arrived at, and the applicant refused to keep the non-applicant/wife and failed to provide her maintenance. Accordingly, the non-applicant/wife filed an application seeking maintenance, contending that the applicant is employed in the P.W.S. (Bridge) Department, Durg, and earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. Per contra, the applicant/husband denied all allegations and contended that no demand of dowry or harassment was ever made, that the non- applicant/wife left the matrimonial home on her own volition, and that she is capable of earning, whereas the applicant is only a daily wage worker earning about Rs. 9,000/- per month. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, the learned Family Court observed that the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence of his income despite asserting the availability of salary slips, and accordingly, partly allowed the application vide order dated 08.11.2024, directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife from the date of application, with adjustment of any interim maintenance already paid. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not properly appreciating the actual income of the applicant, who, as per ofÏcial records, is a daily wage worker earning approximately Rs. 10,094/- per month (around Rs. 9,000/-), as specifically stated in his reply, however, due to non- availability of the pay slip/muster roll at the relevant time, the said fact could not be substantiated before the Court be