The court upheld the Family Court's maintenance order citing the husband's non-disclosure of income, allowing an adverse inference on his earnings.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1 and the father of the remaining respondents. The respondents filed maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹3,500/- to the respondent No.1 from 07/05/2018 till 31/03/2020 and thereafter (01/04/2020), at the rate of ₹2,000/- till 31/10/2021 and thereafter from 01/11/2021, at the rate of ₹3,500/- till 27/11/2023 and thereafter from 28/11/2023, at the rate of ₹5,000/- until further orders. Maintenance was granted to the respondent No.2 at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month from 07/05/2018 till 31/03/2020 and thereafter (01/04/2020), at the rate of ₹1,500/- till 31/10/2021 and thereafter from 01/11/2021, at the rate of ₹3,000/- till 06/03/2022 (date of majority). The Family Court further granted maintenance to the respondent No.3 at the rate of ₹1,500/- per month from 07/05/2018 till 31/03/2020 and thereafter (01/04/2020), at the rate of ₹1,000/- till 31/10/2021 and thereafter from

01/11/2021, at the rate of ₹3,000/- till 31/12/2024 (date of majority). It is challenging the said order of maintenance, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

3. I have heard both sides.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute.

There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the respondent No.1 has any income or source of livelihood. The petitioner admittedly is a rubber tapper. According to the respondents, he is earning ₹24,000/- per month. However, it has been denied by the petitioner. The petitioner did not disclose his income before the court. The petitioner is an able bodied person. InRajnesh v. Neha & Another [ (2021) 2 SCC 324 ], the Supreme Court has held that if the husband fails to disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Considering the ability and means of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be reasonable. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.