Failure to produce salary documentation justifies adverse inference and award of reasonable maintenance to wife.

The applicant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on 05.06.2023

The respondent alleged she was subjected to cruelty, dowry demands of Rs. 5,00,000, and alcohol-fueled assaults, leading her to leave the matrimonial home on 30.06.2023

The respondent filed for maintenance claiming the applicant earns Rs. 30,000 per month as a government employee, while the applicant contended he is a daily wage worker earning Rs. 9,000 per month and that the respondent earns Rs. 25,000 from tuitions

The Family Court, Durg, in Case No. 1442/2024, ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance on 08.11.2024

The applicant filed this revision seeking to reduce the amount to Rs. 1,000

1. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was excessive or arbitrary based on the evidence of the parties' respective incomes.

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to produce documentary evidence of his income at the trial stage warrants an interference in revision.

The Court applied the principles governing maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act and the inherent powers of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The core doctrine dictates that a husband is legally and socially obligated to maintain his wife if she is unable to maintain herself.

The court applied the evidentiary principle of "adverse inference," whereby if a party possesses documentary evidence (such as salary slips) but fails to produce it, the court may presume that such evidence, if produced, would be unfavorable to that party

The Court observed that while the applicant claimed to be a daily wage worker earning approximately Rs. 10,094 per month, he admitted to having access to salary slips and muster rolls but failed to produce them before the Family Court

The High Court held that the trial court correctly drew an adverse inference against him

The Court found the applicant's justifications for not producing records (lack of communication and circumstances beyond control) unpersuasive at the revision stage

Regarding the respondent's alleged income of Rs. 25,000, the Court noted that the Family Court had already considered the rival claims and found the award of Rs. 3,000 per month to be "modest" and "reasonable" given the applicant's earning capacity

The Court concluded that the lower court had applied its judicial mind to the marital relationship and the respondent's state of neglect

The Court affirmed the Family Court’s decision, noting that Rs. 3,000 per month is not excessive

The criminal revision was dismissed for being devoid of merit, and the trial court was directed to be informed for compliance