Ram Pal vs Savita Verma

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The husband Shri Ram Pal and the wife Smt. Savita Verma, both felt dis-satisfied from the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated 30.4.1998, on an application filed by the wife u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, giving rise to the two revision petitions being C.R. No. 2029 of 1998 and 3008 of 1998. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of both these revision petitions by a common order.

Factum of marriage between the parties was not disputed. They were married at Jalandhar according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petition u/s 13 of the Act was filed by the husband against the wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

In the application u/s 24 of the Act, the wife had stated that she has no source of income and is maintaining a minor son nearly one year old. According to her the husband owns businesses in the share of 1/3rd in the firm known as M/s Verma Agro Udyog, Tanda Road, Jalandhar. He is, in fact, income tax payee for so many years, maintains a car and his monthly income is Rs. 50,000/-. On these facts she claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 15,000/-.

While contesting this application the husband averred that the wife was running a beauty parlor along with her sister at Ludhiana and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. He denied the allegation being owner of business. On the contrary he stated that he was merely an employee with M/s Tanco Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., and was getting Rs. 1,900/- per month as salary. As such he denied his liability to pay the maintenance amount as claimed.

Considering these facts the learned Additional District Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month on account of maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 8,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved from this order, both the parties have filed different revision petitions as afore stated.

At the very outset it must be noticed that the wife had filed as affidavit in support of her application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. No reply affidavit thereto was filed. Originally while filing reply to the application u/s 24 of the Act, the husband had omitted to say anything in reply to para 5 of the application. Subsequently, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed to deny the averments made in para No. 5 and to say that the husband was earning Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 1,900/- per month as a result of his employment. Inspite of a specific averment in the application and the affidavit that the respondent-husband was an income tax payee for number of years, the averment was neither admitted nor denied by the husband. Once a material fact having a direct bearing on the merits has not been specifically denied by the concerned party, it would be deemed to have been admitted by necessary implication.

The disposal of an application u/s 24 of the Act by the trial Court normally is by a summary procedure based on affidavits. The onus is on parties but it is equally a settled principle of law that a party who is in possession of best evidence having bearing on the subject matter in issue, keeps back such evidence, in that event, the Court would be justified in drawing an adverse inference against that party. In fact tax record would fairly reflect the real income of the husband. Non-production of such records inspite of specific averments must lead to drawing of adverse inference against the husband. The learned Additional District Judge while allowing the said application materially relied upon the copies of the two sale-deeds which were produced and which indicated that the husband was person of means. The following observations of the Court would be relevant to be referred as under: -

"Copies of two sale deeds dated 3.1.1994 and 16.1.1997 have been produced on record. According to the copy of the sale deed dated 16.1.1997, 4 kanals 2 marlas of land in the area of Jalandhar was purchased by the respondent along with two other co-shares. It is further evident from the said copy of the sale-deed that the said property was purchased in the sum of Rs. 3,34000/- and the payment was made through cheques. The numbers of the cheques, vide which the payment of sale consideration was made, are duly mentioned in the sale deed. Similarly, it is evident from the copy of the sale deed dated 3.1.1994 that a house measuring 6 marlas owned by Naresh Kumar Kholi was sold by him, in favour of Sheela Rani, Ashwani Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Ram Pal in the sum of Rs. 1,61,000/-."

Photo copy of register of employees of one concern M/s Tanco Engineering, Jalandhar City was produced to show that one Ram Pal son of Om Parkash was employed in the year 1997-98 in that concern. This document did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge, and was looked with some suspicion by the Court. While concurring with this view, another factor which must be noticed is that signatures of Ram Pal as reflected on these photo copies of the attendance register do not tally with the signatures of Ram Pal petitioner on the affidavits filed before this Court, even to the naked eye. The signatures on the affidavit filed before this Court are totally incomparable to the signatures on these sheets. Secondly, no address has been reflected of the alleged employee. The other essential blanks in relation to Designation, date of appointment, nature of employment have been left blank. Certainly the said documents do not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon by the Court as a correct reference. On the contrary, Annexure P/4 reflects Ram Pal partner of M/s Verma Agro Udyog, which shows that the husband is carrying on business alongwith his family.

The wife and the minor child would normally be entitled to the status, residence and benefits which they would have enjoyed if they would have continued to live with the husband and his family. In spite of a specific question the learned counsel for the petitioner husband was not able to answer as to what are the qualifications of the husband and what post/designation was he holding in M/s Tanco Engineering. A destitute wife would not be disentitled to receive maintenance even if she was earning some amount. It would be totally normal on the part of the wife to make some effort to earn some money to make her ends meet and bring up the child to the best of her ability who was born from the marriage between the parties. An effort on the part of the wife to earn cannot in any way disentitle her from receiving the amount of maintenance. However, it may affect the extent of the amount of maintenance payable to the wife. Employment or effort on the wife''s part to earn money by doing some business or employment cannot operate as a disqualification against her entitlement from receiving maintenance amount. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. R.K. Sood Vs. Usha Rani Sood, .

Firstly no effort was made by the husband to establish on record that the wife was earning some amount and was running the beauty parlor as alleged. But even if it was so shown, to my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially keeping in view the welfare of the minor child, that would not affect her right to receive maintenance and would not even affect the quantum awarded by the learned trial Court. At the same time. I find no reason to increase the amount of monthly maintenance awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. The wife also made no attempt to prove on record that income of the husband was more than Rs. 50,0000/- per month as alleged. Thus, she must bear the consequences of not bringing the needed documents on record.

For the reasons afore-stated I find no infirmity which would call for interference by this Court in the impugned order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.