1 sg IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2011 Ravikiran Wamanrao Patil ... Appellant Versus Sau. Rashmi Ravikiran Patil ... Respondent Mr. Rajiv Deokar Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.N. Gite Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 29TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. The appellant husband has challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nasik dated 30.05.2011 granting maintenance of Rs.4000/- to the respondent wife. The petitioner is a salaried worker. The respondent wife has also filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. In that petition, he has relied upon his salary slips. His wife filed the application u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. In reply to that application, the husband only denied the claim of the wife that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He did not show the precise salary he was earning. He did not annexe the salary slips. The application u/s 125 was filed since 19th January, 2010. His reply was filed since June, 2010. The application came up for hearing in March, 2011. The parties were referred to Marriage Counsellor. Thereafter, the application was to be heard. The wife 2 filed her affidavit of evidence. The husband was to give evidence. He did not file his affidavit of evidence. He did not produce his salary slips. He applied for an adjournment to do so on 30th April 2011. The application for adjournment and for filing his affidavit of evidence came to be rejected. However, the learned Judge recorded his evidence in the Court itself on 30th April, 2011. The salary slip was not produced. The salary slip was not even annexed to his reply. It was not even relied upon in his reply. Hence, the learned Judge considered rejecting his claim of he having a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. 2. It is seen that the petitioner annexed the salary slip in the petition for divorce but not in the application for maintenance. It was the most apt document to be considered in the application for maintenance. The learned Judge considered the application on merits in the absence of the petitioner’s salary slips because the petitioner did not produce them. 3. It is for the Petitioner to produce the documents relating to his own salary because that is to the knowledge of the Petitioner and not others. The onus of proving the fact to the specific knowledge of the Petitioner is only on the Petitioner under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (See Tabassum Shaikh Vs. Shaikh S.J. Shaikh I (2000) DMC 95 and in the case of Haseena Vs. Abdul Jaleel II(2007) DMC 215). Hence if the Petitioner fails to produce his documentary evidence viz., the salary slips to prove this fact, the Court would be required to proceed accepting the contention of the Respondent wife as the party having special knowledge of the fact 3 required to be proved by him, failed to do so. In fact, adverse inference can be drawn by the Court for failure to produce the best evidence that could be (See AIR 1985 Gujarat 187 Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel Vs. Maniben) and (AIR 1988 Calcutta 98 Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta). In fact it has been held since the early last century by the Privy Council that the documents in possession of a party is the best evidence that can be produced. It can be produced by that party alone. Non-production of such evidence must raise adverse inference, if it is sought to be suppressed (See 1917 44 IA 98 at page 103 Murugesam Pillai Vs. Manickavasaka Pandara and AIR 1929 PC 95 Rameshwar Singh Vs. Bajit Lal Pathak. 4. The learned Judge’s order can not be faulted. The petitioner was trying to defeat and delay the wife’s application for interim maintenance which was filed on January, 2010. The impugned order is correct and does not require to be revised. The Criminal Revision Application is rejected. The husband shall pay the monthly maintenance as directed until the permanent alimony and maintenance is decided in the wife’s petition for divorce. 5. The arrears which the husband has run up is about Rs. 80,000/-. Advocate on behalf of the husband applies for two months’ time for payment by instalments of Rs.40,000/- each. The husband is granted the instalments. The first instalment sought shall be payable within one month and second instalment within two months’ from today. The husband shall, thereafter, pay monthly maintenance as directed above. 4 6. The application for execution taken out by the wife is, therefore, stayed for one month from today. If the first instalment is not paid within one month from today, the application shall be allowed to be executed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)