Kumar Avilash vs Nitu kumari

Arun Kumar Jha

Record taken up on mentioning being made on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Maintenance Case No. 180 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge allowed the maintenance petition filed by the opposite party and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.40,000/- per month in the savings bank account of the opposite party from the date of filing of petition, i.e., with effect from 30.08.2022. The learned trial court further ordered that the maintenance amount would be paid by 15th day of each and every succeeding month and the arrears of maintenance amount would be paid in 48 equal installments. Apart from that Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost was also awarded to opposite party. The learned trial court further ordered that if any amount of interim maintenance is paid, the same could be adjusted in the maintenance amount so ordered by the learned trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the income of the petitioner which is merely Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/-per month. The learned trial court considered the oral statement of the opposite party, who was examined as P.W. 1, wherein she stated that the petitioner earns Rs. Two lakhs per month from his furniture shop, Rs. Three lakhs from his furniture design business and Rs. Two lakhs from his land, house and shop. Further, income of Rs. Two lakhs has been attributed from agriculture. She has stated that the petitioner is earning Rs. Three lakhs per month from running one Royal hotel. Learned counsel further submits that the witness in her cross-examination stated that she could not bring the document of property of respondent and could not tell the name of vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has relied on bank statement of the petitioner for holding that the petitioner was having income of Rs. Two lakhs per month. But the said bank statement does not belong to the petitioner and it was the bank statement of his father. This fact was not considered by the learned trial court. Further, the bank account statement of Ganpati furniture was also considered but the said statement of account which belongs to this petitioner shows transaction of Rs. Twenty lakhs for a period of January 2022 to December 2022 but the same could not be taken as income of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the income tax returns of the petitioner were also filed before the learned trial court but the same were not considered. Learned counsel unequivocally submits that the bank statement relied by the learned trial court showing payment of installment for car and holding it to be bank statement of the petitioner is an error of record. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity for non-consideration of relevant document and also for improper consideration of document.

Perused the records.

From perusal of record and especially the consideration of income by the learned trial court, it is very much apparent that the learned trial court considered the bank statement from which EMIs of two vehicles were being paid to be the bank statement of the petitioner. If it is an error of record, the petitioner should have brought this fact to the notice of the learned trial court immediately after pronouncement of the judgment. Unless the petitioner brings this fact to the notice of the learned trial court, he could not be allowed to raise this issue in revision for the first time while assailing the order. Further, consideration of the learned trial court about the transaction of 12 months from the bank account of the petitioner for his furniture shop could not be said to be unreasonable. The purpose of legislation to allow maintenance is to save a woman from destitution and vagrancy and it is not charity. If a person is having transaction of Rs. Twenty lakhs, there is presumption of sufficient income from the shop. It could not be said that the learned trial court entirely relied upon the oral statement of the opposite party. Therefore, the judgment and order is a reasonable order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165 has held that the revisional court should not interfere if the order impugned does not suffers from any manifest illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The revisional court is not allowed to re-appreciate the fact if certain view has been taken by the subordinate court. The revisional court could not take a different view to overturn the such finding. A Five Judges Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 has also taken the same view though this case relates to the rent. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity so as to require interference by this Court.

Hence, finding no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order, the same is affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue of error of record before the learned trial court.