IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Jagdeep Singh Vs. Manprit Kaur & Another (S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No.287/2006) S. B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: February 5th, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. P.C.Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr. Hanuman Chaudhary, for respondents. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 22-2-2006, passed by Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur in Case No.25/2006, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3500/- to his wife, Smt. Manprit Kaur, and Rs.2000/- to his daughter, Kumari Sohal, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Manprit Kaur were married on 14-8-1993, according to Hindu rites and customs. From their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter, Kumari Sohal. However, due to persistent physical and mental torture for dowry, the respondent No.1 was forced to leave her matrimonial home along with her daughter. Subsequently on 4-1-2006, she filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance from the petitioner. In support of her case, she examined herself and one Nishan Singh as witnesses. She also submitted number of documents. The petitioner, on the other hand, did not examine anyone else, except himself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. P.C.Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had transferred a plot in the name of respondent No.1. Subsequently, she had sold the plot and had kept the money with herself. Moreover, she runs a boutique, from which she earns sufficient amount to maintain herself, as well as her child. She is not dependent on the petitioner for maintenance. She has sufficient means of her own. Therefore, she is dis-entitled from claiming maintenance from the petitioner, Furthermore, the learned court below has erred in not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. Although, the petitioner submitted Income-tax return showing that he earns merely Rs.54,000/- per year, the learned court has assessed his income on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Chaudhary, the learned counsel for respondents, has contended that the petitioner has not been able to establish that respondent No.1 has kept the money from the plot she sold. Furthermore, he has not established that she runs a boutique, therefore, she has sufficient means for maintaining herself and her child. Further, the learned court below is justified in assessing the income of petitioner on the basis of his life style. Although, the petitioner claims that he earns merely Rs.54,000/- per year, yet he maintains a Honda City car, which he had bought in the year 2005. Furthermore, he is a property dealer. In his cross examination, the petitioner admits that he is a property dealer, although, he is not a colonizer. Thus, the impugned order has been passed after a valid appreciation of evidence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the material available on record, and examined the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that there is difference between alleging the fact, and proving the fact. Although, the petitioner had alleged that respondent No.1 has sufficient means to maintain herself and her child, but according to learned court he did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the same. Since, the petitioner could not prove the facts by corroborative evidence, the learned court was legally justified in rejecting his contentions. 7. Many a times, Assessee does not reflect his/ her real income in the Income-tax return filed by him/ her. This is not an unusual phenomena. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner could buy and maintain a Honda City car, considering the fact that he claims to be a a property dealer, the learned court was certainly justified in concluding that the Income tax return filed by him does not reflect his true income. Thus, it cannot be held that the assessment of income has been made on surmises and conjectures. Instead, it is based on assessment of evidence produced during the trial. 8. It is not only a legal duty of a husband, and father, to provide sufficient means to his wife and daughter, but, moreso, a moral duty of the husband and father to maintain his wife and daughter. Considering the price index, and high cost of living today, a reasonable maintenance has been awarded by the learned court. There is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. 9. For the reasons, mentioned herein above, there is no merit in the revision petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn/