Failure to produce evidence of income can lead to adverse inferences against the petitioner in maintenance cases.

O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.459 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd respondent. The respondents filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Malappuram seeking monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively. The Family Court, after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the 1^st respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the 2^nd respondent. The said judgment is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. Even though the petitioner has taken a contention that the 1^st respondent is employed, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the said contention. Admittedly, the petitioner is a driver employed abroad. According to the 1^st respondent, the petitioner earns a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is denied by the petitioner. However, he has not produced any document to show his income. In Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324] , the Supreme Court held that if the husband fails to produce documentary evidence to prove his income, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him.

5. Considering the requirement of the respondents and the ability and income of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.