1 cwp3165 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3165 OF 2010 Mr.Aziz Asgar Khan ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Raj for the Petitioner Ms M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P for the respondent no.1-State Mr.S.K.Ali for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2011 P.C.: 1 The petitioner husband has challenged the order of the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife and four minor children which has been confirmed by the Sessions court in Appeal. 2 The order of maintenance has been passed by way of interim relief by the learned Magistrate in the pending application under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,2005. 3 The Sessions Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute that he is running the business of furniture in the name and style of Alif Enterprises . The Sessions Court has noted the case made out by the petitioner that he was getting rent of Rs.20,000/- from shop no.12 Meera Tower C.H.S.Ltd, Lokhandwala, New Link Road, Oshiwara (W), 2 cwp3165 Mumbai. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Advocate for the petitioner did not produce necessary documents before the Trial Court and the petitioner is willing to produce the said document before this court. His submission is that if the documents produced by the petitioner are considered, the maintenance amount will have to be reduced. 5 As stated earlier, the total maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- has been granted to the wife and four minor sons. The relevant finding of the Sessions court reads thus : 5...It is also not disputed by the appellant-husband that he is an expert carpenter and running his business of furniture in the name and style of Alif Enterprises . However, appellant denied that he is getting rent of Rs.80,000/- per month from the shop no.12, Meera Tower C.H.S.Ltd.Lokhandwala, New Link Road, Oshiwara (W), Mumbai. According to him, he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It s pertinent to note here that the fact of leasing out of said shop is not disputed by appellant. Since the fact of receiving of rent is within his special knowledge, he ought to have given details as to how much rent he is getting from the said shop. Suppressing of said fact leads to drawing 3 cwp3165 of an adverse inference. (underline supplied) 6 Thus, the admitted position as noted by the Sessions Court is that apart from carrying on business, the Petitioner is receiving rent of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The order of the Appellate Court was passed on 16 th October 2010. By the said order, order passed by the learned Magistrate on 20 th May 2010 was confirmed. The present petition was filed in October 2011. Even along with the petition the petitioner did not produce any document. He did not make any effort to produce the same before the Appellate Court. It is too late in the day to make an oral request to permit production of the documents before this Court which ought to have been produced before the Trial Court. Therefore, the oral prayer for grant of permission to produce the documents is rejected. 7 The amount of maintenance granted by the Trial Court is reasonable considering the admitted position recorded by the Sessions Court. No interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE