The quantum of maintenance must be commensurate with the actual income of the parent; trial courts must consider documentary evidence like salary slips and not rely on unsubstantiated oral claims of additional income.

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE Family Court Act, 1984 , PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2023 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.10.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELLARY IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2023 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

Heard both sides on main petition.

2. Respondent No.1 on her behalf and also on behalf of her two minor children has filed petition before the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. After contest, the said petition was partly allowed granting maintenance only to minor children at ₹5,000/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, no maintenance was granted on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. It is an admitted fact that the divorce was granted by a competent Court of law dissolving the marriage of the revision petitioner and respondent No. 1.

4. There were serious allegations between revision petitioner and respondent No.1 regarding the character of respondent No.1 and other facts which need not be looked into in detail in this revision petition, because it is filed only by the husband and wife is not challenging the same.

5. Furthermore, after service of notice of this revision petition, respondent No.1-wife is unrepresented. Hence, Court guardian is appointed for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and she has filed objections to the main petition. The salary certificate of revision petitioner was produced before trial Court and it was marked as Ex.R.3 for the month of February-2024. This salary slip reveals that even by including overtime charges, the gross salary of the revision petitioner was ₹15,070/- and after making deductions in respect of E.S.I. and E.P.F. premium, his net salary would be ₹14,610/-.

6. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that, from his meager salary, he has to maintain himself, his aged parents, and also look after his minor children.

7. The contention of revision petitioner is that initially interim maintenance of ₹2,500/- per month was granted to each child and he is paying that amount without fail in every month and after he coming to know about the grant of maintenance at ₹5,000/- each to each child per month, by taking loan from his friends, well-wishers and relatives, he is making payment of ₹5,000/- each to the minor children i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it is impossible for him to make such payment.

8. Learned advocate cum Court guardian for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that there are five immovable properties and revision petitioner is getting rentals from it and thus, it is not difficult for him to make payment of ₹5,000/- each to each child and it is a proper maintenance awarded by the trial Court.

9. It is to be noted here that the petitioners before trial Court i.e. petitioner No.1 who is mother of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has not produced any iota of evidence to show that revision petitioner is having any immovable properties and getting rentals from it. Hence, her contention was not accepted by the trial Court and was discussed as follows at paragraph No.17:

“17. That on iota of evidence is adduced by the first petitioner to prove the income of respondent as pleaded by her. In other words first petitioner adduce no material evidence to prove that respondent earns Rs.20,000/- by way of salary and also another sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of rents from different 5 immovable house properties. The mere oral version of first petitioner in this behalf can not be acted upon.”

10. After taking note of the fact that the petitioner No.1 before trial Court has not produced any material that the revision petitioner is getting rentals, the trial Court without examining the salary slip of the revision petitioner has granted monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- each t