A single judge bench of the Justice Umesh A. Trivedi of Gujarat HC has not allowed the revision application filed for challenging the court order for granting maintenance to the mother and her daughter, in absence of finding any substantial to interfere.
However, the court expressed that the maintenance should be enhanced but refrained from doing that in light of the fact that respondent had withdrawn her revision petition.
Facts:
The fact of the case is that applicant filed a Revision Application challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bharuch, dated 10.04.2018, whereby respondent-wife was awarded Rs.6,000/- per month and Respondent No.2-minor daughter was awarded Rs.3,000/- per month, as maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’).
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted he is only a partner in M/s.Kadri Traders and its income-tax returns have been produced, which reflects that he earns Rs.1 Lac per year as a share in the profit and therefore, amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the wife is equivalent to earnings of the husband and therefore, it is required to be interfered in this Revision Application.
He has further submitted that for determining the amount of maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife and daughter, the Court had considered the gross profit of the partnership firm and thereby committed grave mistake. He further submitted that as recorded in the income-tax returns of the firm, his earning is only Rs.60,000/- as withdrawals and approximately Rs.40,000/- towards the interest earned on the capital invested with the partnership firm and therefore, his earnings can be said to be Rs.1 Lac only per year. Therefore, he submitted that this Revision Application is required to be admitted and allowed.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that it is surprising that despite all the documents have been produced by the respondent, appellant has not uttered a word of his properties in his deposition and on the contrary, when confronted with the same by the Court, learned advocate has attempted to explain that it maybe a joint property along with other owners. Even if it is true to that extent, he has share in all these properties and approximate value of his share in it, is also not deposed to by the applicant-husband, rather not stated to be owned by him in his deposition or reply. Therefore, he has suppressed his real earnings as well as properties available at his disposal.
Though in his deposition and the reply, appellant has stated that he owns scooter for a value of Rs.7000/- and one Micra Car is owned by the father, however, RTO certificate Exh.53, reflects that since 14.12.2015, the said Micra car has been transferred in the name of the applicant. If at all the said vehicle is owned by the father, when it is already transferred in the name of the applicant, that too, much prior to his deposition before the Court, it was incumbent upon him to state the correct facts before the Court and instead, he has suppressed the same. The production of income tax returns of partnership firm is irrelevant, in absence of production of individual IT returns, that might have been filed by the applicant when he owns and possessed such a huge extent of land as also residential plots and properties to believe his earnings Rs.1 lac only per annum.
Even if, what is reflected from the income tax returns of the partnership firm where gross profit is taken into consideration for arriving at conclusion that the applicant earns Rs.2,75,000/- from the partnership firm is not believed to be correct, as submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, the fact remains that though to a large extent he owns not only agricultural land, residential properties as also N.A. Plots, he has not come forward before the Court to disclose the true and correct worth of it so as to determine the amount of maintenance in favour of respondent.
It is unfortunate that respondent-wife, though preferred revision application, has withdrawn the same, otherwise, this case calls for enhancement of maintenance, which I refrain from doing so when wife has withdrawn the revision application.
Decision:
The Revision Application was dismissed in view of the finding that applicant is having much more properties as also earnings than what he has stated before the Court.
Case: Sarfaraj Suleman Goraji vs. Roshan w/o Sarfaraj Suleman Goraji D/O Mubin Ismail Patel
Citation: R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 745 of 2018
Coram: Justice Umesh A. Trivedi
Dated: 15.11.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
