1. The petitioner - party-in-person has remain present before this Court on several adjournments. Today, she is appearing through video conferencing; she herself is placing her case before the Court and arguing the matter.

2. In Criminal Revision Application No.776 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the part of the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.333 of 2013, stating that the amount of maintenance and the cost ordered is less.

3. The party-in-person referring to the facts of the case stated that the husband is in Singapore and earlier she was too residing at 5- 210, North Tower, 36 College Avenue, University Town, National University of Singapore, Singapore, along with the husband. Page 2 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined

4. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner after marriage with respondent no.2 on 07.03.2011 as per Hindu Rites and customs at Dholka, District Ahmedabad, had resided with the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his family members for about four days at Ahmedabad. She has alleged, at that time, they had not behaved properly with her and the ornaments, given at the time of marriage, were kept in the locker of in-laws, and the gifts received by the petitioner along with the cash amount of Rs.75,000/- were also not returned back to her. 4.1 Thereafter, the petitioner, party-in- person along with respondent shifted to Singapore, and she stated that instead of obtaining spouse visa, she was taken on visitor visa on 12.03.2011, and at Singapore she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the brother-in-law and his wife, and they had Page 3 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined demanded dowry and continued to mentally and physically torture her. The respondent and in- laws demanded Rs.4 Lacs from the parents of the petitioner for sending the petitioner to Munich, Germany to accompany her husband, who was to go there to attend the conference, moreover, had demanded cash dowry of Rs.1 Lacs and other ornaments of Rs.50,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband used to sleep in separate room and did not consummate the marriage, that was creating mental torture, and, thus was not in a position to give birth to a child.

4.2 The petitioner has stated that she was taken to Indonesia and was insisted to eat non- veg food and consume liquor, and on resistance the respondent tried to kill her in presence of several persons. The husband threatened to give her divorce and also threatened to kill, if she would ask for any money. The petitioner stated Page 4 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined that when she was in Singapore, the brother-in- law had made false complaint against her and she was subjected to physical torture and was given threat of abandoning and driven out from Singapore to India forcefully on 02.08.2011, and was not allowed to live with the husband and in- laws unless the demand of dowry got satisfied. 4.3 The petitioner stated that because of intervention of the relatives, the husband sent ticket of Singapore on 09.12.2011, and petitioner had gone to stay with her husband, but because of instigation of the family members, she was subjected to physical and mental torture for which the petitioner had to approach Singapore police. She was also subjected to humiliation by in-laws and was asked to consult a psychiatrist, though was not suffering from any mental problem, and when she refused the same, she was again driven out from the house of Singapore on 04.02.2012, and had returned to India in a Page 5 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined helpless condition.

4.4 The party-in-person stated that Criminal Misc. Application No.333 of 2013 filed before the Family Court, Surat on 27.06.2013 seeking maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was with a prayer of Rs.1 Lac per month as maintenance, as her husband is working as scientist in Temacek Laboratory at Singapore and was earning more than 7000 Singapore Dollars and had no other responsibility. 4.5 The party-in-person has stated that on service of notice to respondent no.2, he had filed his reply at Exh.11 and had denied the allegation in the maintenance application and has contended that he had not received any notice dated 18.05.2011 sent through the advocate at Ahmedabad and Singapore, and contended that they have never demanded any amount of dowry and false case was filed against him, and that the Page 6 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined petitioner returned to India for final exams of M.B.A. and on 29.01.2012, the petitioner had picked up a quarrel, as he returned late from the office and had also called police, further stated that petitioner is suffering from psychological problems, and further a contention has been raised that Surat Court has no jurisdiction. He earns 3400 Singapore Dollars, and having the responsibility of father and mother. 4.6 The record suggests that the interim maintenance application came to be rejected vide order dated 12.08.2015. Against the rejection, the petitioner had filed petition before this Court by moving Criminal Revision Application No.551 of 2020, which was disposed of by an order dated 26.10.2015, directing the trial Court to hear the main matter as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner stated that her evidence was recorded by way of affidavit Exh.22 and produced documentary evidence by list Exh.23; thereafter a Page 7 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined closing pursis was moved at Exh.41, and in the meantime, she again gave an application for interim maintenance at Exh.38. Thereafter, another interim maintenance application at Exh.67 was presented on 20.05.2016.

4.7 The petitioner states that the husband had not entered into the witness box to give any evidence, but had produced Exh.10 for submitting nine documents, and at the end of the proceedings, the maintenance application was allowed with order of monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month from 27.06.2013 to 30.05.2016, and thereafter Rs.15,000/- per month was awarded from 01.06.2016.

4.8 The contention raised by party-in-person is that the impugned order awarding maintenance amount is less and not in accordance to the status of the parties. The trial Court has completely overlooked the fact that the husband Page 8 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined has not stepped into the witness box and has not given any evidence. The party-in-person states that the trial Court has wrongly held that the petitioner has left India and gone to Singapore without taking permission of the Court, while she was released on bail in respect of F.I.R. filed by her relatives in respect of disputes of ancestral property. As per the petitioner, the finding is without any basis and without checking the record, as the petitioner had not gone to Singapore on 04.02.2012, and was released on bail by concerned Court vide order dated 08.05.2012. 4.9 The party-in-person submitted that the Court has miserably failed in assessing the real income of the respondent, when the petitioner has clearly stated that the respondent is earning 7000 Singapore Dollars per month i.e. more than Rs.2,50,000/-. The party-in-person submitted that the trial Court has not properly considered the income tax returns filed by the petitioner, and Page 9 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined contended that even if it is believed that the petitioner was earning as an agent in postal department, then also she is entitled to live her life as per status of her husband, she submitted that after marriage she was not earning and was not having any independent source of income. She stated that the witness examined by the other side i.e. sub-post master, Mohanbhai Lallubhai Umarvansi supports the case of the petitioner that she did not have any continuous monthly income from the said agency. Moreover, the witness examined by the other side Sirajuddin Bahaurali, Associate Professor, Navyug Commerce College, has clearly stated that the petitioner was not having the educational qualification as a lecturer and she worked in the year 2007 for few months on temporary basis.

4.10 It is submitted by party-in-person that the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioner's income could be Page 10 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined said to be Rs.20,740/-. The party-in-person submitted that even if such income is considered, then it would be less than Rs.2,000/- per month, which could have no bearing at the time of awarding maintenance amount to the petitioner. 4.11 The party-in-person submitted that the Family Court has overlooked the conduct of respondent, who has deliberately not produced any evidence as to his income in Singapore, and after the order of the Court, the respondent husband has produced the income tax documents on the basis of which the Court has assessed his annual income as Rs.19 Lacs per year and Rs.1,63,000/- per month, and without any expert opinion and report on inflation ratio at Singapore and comparative value, has come to the conclusion considering inflation rate three times more and by deducting the expense, the petitioner was made entitled for only Rs.12,000/- per month from 27.06.2013 to 30.05.2016 and from 01.06.2016 Page 11 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined Rs.15,000/-.

4.12 The Party-in-person submitted that looking to the income tax returns produced by the husband, the chargeable income had been shown as $39,800, $39,800 and $44,271 for the year 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively and on assumption the Court granted the maintenance; while contended that the order passed is on a very lower side. Party-in-person submitted that when the respondent no.2 has not stepped into the witness box, then an adverse inference ought to have been made. Party-in-person further stated that the respondent no.2 had mentioned wrong dates of conference, which was held in Germany to misguide the Court.

4.13 The party-in-person has referred to the judgments in case of ( i) Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma , rendered by Delhi High Court in the year 2020; (ii) Bharat Hegde Vs. Page 12 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined Smt. Saroj Hegde; ( iii) Reema Salkan Vs. Sameer Singh Salkan , reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303; (iv) Bhuwan Mohan Singh V/s. Meena, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353; to submit that maintenance is not only a constitutional right, but also an element of universal human rights. The purpose of paying maintenance is two folds; first to prevent vagrancy as a result of strained husband-wife relationship and second, to guarantee that the poor litigating party is not crippled as a result of lack of funds to defend or prosecute the case. Party-in-person further stated that maintenance should not be meager that drives the wife to penury, and while determining the maintenance allowance, regards must be had to the living standard of husband and family.

4.14 The party-in-person has also relied on the judgment of Babit Bisht Vs. Dharmendra Singh Bisht , reported in (2019) SCC Online Del. 8775, to state that she is entitled in law to live life Page 13 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined in similar manner, as she would have in the house of husband, where the status and strata come into play, and where the obligations of the husband in case of wife becomes a prominent one. It is submitted that the judgments of the Supreme Court clarifies that husband cannot resort to subterfuge to deprive wife of the benefit of living with dignity.

4.15 The party-in-person has also referred calculation in tabular form in respect of the income of husband, referred in the written submissions of the party-in-person, which is reproduced hereunder:

5. Advocate Mr. Dhanesh Patel for Mr. Bhadrish S.Raju, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 submitted that there is no concept of income tax returns in Singapore and there is no suppression of facts of earning of income. Mr. Patel stated that the respondent no.2 has also to take care of ailing father and mother.

Page 15 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined 5.1 Advocate Mr. Patel has relied on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Amit Aggarwal Vs. Rity Aggarwal And Anr. , dated 26.10.2018, to state that if the petitioner conceals the facts and does not disclose true fact at the time of filing an application, and does not approach the Court with clean hands, then would not be entitled for any relief interim or final, and stated that at the time of application, she was earning income as an agent in the Postal Department, which she was also earning even prior to the marriage. 5.2 Mr. Patel further submitted that Rs.19 Lacs assessed by the trial Court is not in accordance to the evidence because as per Advocate Mr. Patel the trial Court was required to assess the costs of living.

5.3 Advocate Mr. Patel stated that there is inconsistency in the evidence and petitioner Page 16 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined herself has contradicted her own evidence regarding allegation of demand of dowry. Further, Mr. Patel stated that the conduct of the petitioner before the Court has also been observed by the trial Court, which is required to be taken into consideration.

5.4 Advocate Mr. Patel stated vide Exh.65 the respondent no.2 has produced notice of assessment, which is as good as filing an income tax return, which is issued by appropriate authority of Singapore. Over and above, Mr. Patel submitted that the salary slip was also produced before the trial Court vide Exh.16. Mr. Patel stated that the purchase price parity has also been taken into consideration by the trial Court. 5.5 Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the documents are public documents and, thus, there would not be any necessity for proving the same, and it could be read in evidence and also there Page 17 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined is no necessity to examine the witness to prove the same. Mr. Patel stated that the petitioner has admitted about the medical conditions of the parents of the respondent no.2.

5.6 Advocate Mr. Patel has relied on section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which gives wide power to the Court to accept any document, and submitted that there is limited revision power of this Court unless shown that the order is apparently wrong and suffers from miscarriage of justice.

5.7 Advocate Mr. Dhanesh Patel further submitted that the calculation, which has been relied upon, is not of the period, which has been dealt with by the Family Court. He stated that if at all the petitioner has to prove the income of the later year, then the petitioner is required to file an application under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. Page 18 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined

8. Two fold contentions, which primarily could be drawn from the arguments of the petitioner, party-in-person, is that the income drawn by the respondent no.2 in Singapore has not been assessed in right perspective; and further about the observation made by the Family Court regarding the demeanour. It was strongly agitated by the petitioner, party-in-person that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent husband had not appeared before the Family Court. Had he been in the witness box, he would also have misbehaved, and the learned Judge would have been constrained to record his demeanour too, since that fact can be considered by the affidavit of respondent which he has filed before the Court asking for pardon on using abusive words against the party-in- person.

8.1 The petitioner, party-in-person submits that the learned Family Court Judge has very Page 19 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined categorically observed that the mental condition, as alleged by the respondent husband of the petitioner has not been proved. Petitioner submitted that the respondent was bend upon to prove her as mentally ill, which the Family Court has rightly rejected.

8.2 While the main contention on the side of the respondent husband is that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has not disclosed her earnings at the time of the petition, and has contended that Exh.65 notice of assessment being a public document be considered, and the income at Exh.16, be considered as a proof.

8.3 The petitioner, party-in-person stated that those e-pay slips are unauthenticated. There are no name of the employer nor any signature or stamp of the employer and has straightway produced salary slip, which is at Exh.34. The party-in-person further stated that the Page 20 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined allegations made against her were not proved; and further submitted that the respondent husband himself has used abusive words against her, while making comments during remittance of money, which is derogatory in nature, and such comments were read by the Bank Authorities as well as treasury office, and submitted that the said fact gets reflected in the affidavit filed by the respondent husband, in which he had stated that, the documents produced by the petitioner is in the nature of private slip and such remarks in the payment reference column are private remarks and the same are not reflected in the receivers account or payment information, and also submitted that the said document was inadvertently submitted to the petitioner just to show as a proof of payment towards maintenance, and thus not intended to be submitted before any authority. The petitioner stated that the admission of the respondent in the affidavit Page 21 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined dated 12.12.2022 that the remarks made were out of frustration, alleging that false allegations were made by the petitioner in open court against the respondent husband and his family members, which the respondent husband has filed an unconditional apology, proves his abusive nature. 8.4 The physical copy of the affidavit is produced on record pursuant to the order dated 07.12.2022, which has been affirmed at Singapore before the Notary Public.

9. The Family Court, Surat by order dated 13.0.2016, declared on 17.06.2016, is partly allowing the Criminal Misc. Application No.333 of 2013, wherein the opponent had been ordered to pay monthly amount of Rs.12,000/- from the date of application i.e. from 27.06.2013 till 30.05.2016 and from 01.06.2016, monthly amount of Rs.15,000/-. The cause title shows that the respondent - husband is at Temasek laboratories Research Institutes and Centres, TL-04-01, Page 22 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined University Level, Singapore.

9.1 The facts of the case have been reflected in the order of the Family Court, where the petitioner had alleged that the opponent and his brother and sister-in-law had harassed her and had forcibly sent her from Singapore to India on 02.08.2011, so that, opponents could go to U.S., Bostan, since then, the petitioner is staying with her parents. In the meantime, because of the intervention of the relatives and the representatives of the communities, she was sent back to Singapore on 03.12.2011, and thereafter too, as per facts, she was physically and mentally harassed. It was stated by the petitioner before the Family Court that she was mentally harassed stating that her mental condition was not good, and that the respondent husband was not ready to keep her along with him, and therefore, she was forced to leave Singapore for India on 04.02.2012.

Page 23 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined 9.2 The learned judge of the Family Court, while appreciating the evidence on record has noted the evidence of the petitioner observing that, the respondent has failed to prove that the petitioner was suffering from mental disease. She does not have any information regarding the medicine 'Paroxetine'. The learned Judge has noted that as per petitioner she has completed her M.B.A. in 2011 and denied that to attend her exam of M.B.A., had come back to India from Singapore. Petitioner stated in her evidence that Singapore police had asked about medicine 'Paroxetine', but she had no knowledge about it. She has also denied the suggestion that the medical authority has advised her for treatment. She also states that she is ready to give any medical examination for her mental status. The learned Judge has categorically noted that the respondent husband has failed to prove such allegations, and, therefore, the issue no.1 was Page 24 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined partly answered in affirmative to note that the petitioner has spent her marriage life at Singapore and has come to the conclusion that the respondent husband has failed to prove that he has made any effort within a period of three years to take the petitioner back. 9.3 Prior to referring to other facts on record, it is required to note that the respondent husband, has not appeared before the Court to prove any facts, nor has proved the documents, which have been produced to prove his income. The learned Judge noted that, as per petitioner, the opponent is a scientist at Temasek laboratories Research Institutes and Centres, and every month he is earning more than 7000 Singapore Dollars, which is as per the exchange value Rs.2,50,000/- per month, and he has no other responsibility, therefore she had Page 25 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined made a prayer for monthly payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and legal expense of Rs.25,000/-. 9.4 The opponent had produced his reply at Exh.11. The party-in-person stated that the reply was not signed by the opponent and endorsement to that effect was placed on the record therefore assured that they would later on file written signed statement of the respondent. 9.5 The learned Judge has referred to the contents of Exh.11 to note that the respondent husband is earning $3400 at Singapore and he has residential expense and travelling expense, responsibility of his parents, his father is suffering from eye disease and has expended for operation, his mother is also asthmatic and a arthritis patient.

9.6 The learned Judge of the Family Court has noted that as per cross-examination from the side of the respondent of the petitioner, the Page 26 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined petitioner at the time of marriage was having an adhoc job as statistical officer at Navsari district. She had applied after an advertisement in the newspaper. She had completed her M.S.C., and there was no specific income, and according to her it was Rs.4000 to 5000 per month. As per the petitioner, she had completed her M.B.A. in 2010-11, and had ATKT (Allowed To Keep Terms) in one subject of M.B.A., and had denied of coming back to India for giving her M.B.A. exam. According to her, since her early age, she was filing income tax, and while she was at Singapore too her income tax returns were filed. She does not recollect the year of filing of last income tax return. While during her cross-examination, she had admitted of the document at Mark 36/1 of her returns for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, wherein she had shown her source of income as of a postal agent, which also reflects the deduction of T.D.S. from the income.

Page 27 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined 9.7 As per the observation of the Family Court, prior to 2013-14, the petitioner was paying income tax and her source of income is as a female recurring agent, which she was before the marriage. The maintenance application was filed on 27.06.2013, where, in the application, she has noted that she is a housewife, thus the learned Judge has considered it as a suppression, at the same time observing that, in the affidavit, she has stated that she is not in a position to earn and is not actually earning; while the respondent husband has produced documents of income when the petitioner has admitted that at the time of application, the agency was in force. The petitioner herself states that she does not know any new work and in the assessment year 2013-14, the monthly income was Rs.15,583 and has admitted that she has not shown her income from the agency in the petition. 9.8. The petitioner, party-in-person Page 28 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined submitted that the judgment was delivered in the year 2016, while the details of income tax returns are of the year 2013-14, and she submitted that later on her agency discontinued and she was not having any source of income. She further argued that the commission, which she received as a recurring agent was to be distributed between the agent and customers. 9.9 The learned Judge has observed about the list vide Exh.36, the assessment of income tax returns of the year 2013-14 and the T.D.S. Form, if read, the petitioner in the year 2012-13 has received Rs.1,87,761/- with a deduction of Rs.2,304/- and refund of Rs.2,300/-. The learned Judge has referred to the income of the petitioner, where it has been noted that as a proprietor of the business, the income tax return details, reflects her income.

9.10 The learned Judge has referred that the property is worth value Rs.30,000/-, her cash is Page 29 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined Rs.75,400/- and the yearly income is Rs.1,19,500/-, wherein the commission is Rs.23,030/-, thus, in total Rs.2,13,530/-. Against that telephone expense and travelling expense were deducted, and the net income has been shown as Rs.1,87,861/-. The learned Judge has noted that the deduction by the post department of Rs.2,300/- has been refunded back to her, and therefore has assessed that her income for the year 2012-13 is Rs.1,87,761/-. The reference regarding the T.D.S. of the year 2013- 14 and February, 2013 had been made of Rs.1,860/- and Rs.1,944/- and for January, Rs.1,940/- respectively. Thus, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of her income and has observed that she was having her income at the time of the application.

9.11 The learned Judge has also noted about the provision of section 340 of the Cr.P.C. to Page 30 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined peruse the case of perjury on the application, Exh.43, of the respondent, and on dealing with the provisions, as per record has concluded there is no such offence of perjury, and thereby Exh.43 was rejected. In view of that order the contention of suppression of facts regarding the earning stands rejected.

9.12 The learned Family Court Judge while referring to the documents and submissions of the respondent has noted that the petitioner was holding an agency of the postal department, and after filing of the case, she has filed the income tax returns of the year 2013-14 and petitioner voluntarily stated, thereafter she had not received any income. For the assessment year 2013-14, she has admitted her income as Rs.1,83,000/-.

9.13 The learned Judge has noted that from the respondent side certain witnesses were examined, to show the income of the petitioner Page 31 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined where one witness was Mohanbhai Lallubhai Umarvansi, sub-post master, Bhata. According to him, the agents are appointed for the State on behalf of State Post Department, and since 2007, the petitioner - Krupa Kanaiyalal Shah was noted as an agent and she is filing her returns; her agent code is 706, which was renewed till 16.08.2016. The witness has given details regarding the agency and the re-validation of the agency and stated that small scale saving tenure was till 10.08.2016.

9.14 The learned Judge has observed that as per the document produced by witness at 49/1 to 49/5, she has two types of agency, her agent code is 706; one agency is regarding women recurring saving account from which she is earning commission and another is of being a personal agent.

9.15 The another witness, who has been examined by the respondent at Exh.55 and Exh.56, Page 32 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined are Sirajuddin Bahudarali, who is an Associate Professor, Navyug Commerce College and Principal Dr. Vinodchandra Patel, who had stated that for a limited period, the petitioner was on temporary basis has given the service as statistician (Ankadashastra), and the petitioner's mother - Harshaben Shah is a senior professor at college, and when there was an emergency in the college, where the Statistic H.O.D. was suffering from Heart attack, for about two and half months, she was on medical leave, and, thus, on oral interview, the petitioner was taken as lecturer in the faculty; since she was not competent to be appointed as lecturer, as she could not qualify as per U.G.C. Rules of having more than 55%, she was paid Rs.1,750/- on 03.08.2007, Rs.3,500/- on 05.09.2007 and Rs.2,625/- on 13.12.2007. 9.16 The learned Family Court Judge has referred to the statement of the witnesses, who have been examined by the respondent to prove the Page 33 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined petitioner's income.

10. It is unfortunate to note that the respondent husband himself has not stepped into the witness box. The conduct of the petitioner was noted in the judgment, but the Family Court Judge has failed to observe the conduct of the respondent, who has failed to respect the process of the Court. Such conduct has not been deprecated by the Family Court Judge. It is true that no person can be forced to appear before the Court, but at the same time, the Court was required to take a judicial notice of the fact that the respondent has avoided the process of the Court. He has not stepped into the witness box to depose his facts.

11. It has been argued by learned advocate Mr. Dhanesh Patel that section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides the Court to receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may in its opinion, Page 34 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . The learned Judge has only dealt with the evidence with regard to the petitioner, but has not condemned the fact that respondent husband has failed to prove his income by examining witnesses. The observations of the income of husband are on assumptions. The petitioner has stated that the respondent husband was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month, while the respondent has refused the same. The endorsement on Exh.15, notes that the original written statement has not been produced, and it was the photo copy. The copy was accepted by the Advocate on record of the petitioner on condition that the original would be produced at Exh.15, which is a reply for the interim maintenance application.

12. It is required to be noted that by Exh.54, witness - Mohanbhai Lallubhai Umarvansi Page 35 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined has moved the Family Court to rectify his deposition stating that on misunderstanding he has deposed that recurring agency is still in force, he stated that recurring agency for the Code No.706 was stopped on 30.10.2014, and thereafter, petitioner had not put up any work, and according to that statement, Exh.54 for the year 2008 to 2012, the petitioner has received Rs.2,000/- per month as commission. The learned Judge has failed to take notice of that statement.

12.1 The respondent has not clarified as to what is his post in Singapore. It was placed on record at Exh.34 that he is having his job at BioSyM. The e-slips produced, has been relied upon, but on perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it shows that the said e-slip does not bear the signature of any authorized person; this slip is not authenticated and does not even show whether it has been given by any authorized Page 36 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined person. Exh.16 list, an electronic pay slip of the salary of month of November, 2013, which shows the gross pay of 3,400 and net pay of 3,400 in Singapore Dollars, and at Exh.34, the electronic pay slip for the year 2015. It is argued by learned advocate for the respondent husband that such salary slips are in electronic form, thus, no signature is required, which is also reflected in the said document. Electronic evidence are required to be proved in accordance to Indian Evidence Act .

12.2 By list Exh.65, a notice of assessment amended (clearance) from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014, 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, 01.01.2016 to 02.03.2016 and 03.03.2016 to 31.12.2016 have been produced on record. It has been argued that the learned Judge has noted that, the respondent himself has not appeared before the Court to prove his income. By Exh.59, the petitioner had given a list to examine the witness by making a Page 37 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined prayer to issue notice to the witness, and on hearing the parties the evidence was closed, and thereafter no evidence has been produced by the respondent.

12.3 The learned Family Court Judge has noted that as per the list, the witnesses were High Commission of Singapore in India, Ministry Of Manpower, BioSyM etc., which the petitioner wanted to examine; however, the said application came to be rejected and it was ordered to the respondent that within 15 days he has to produce his income at Singapore for the current year 2013-14. The income tax documents were ordered to be produced. The learned Judge noted Exh.65, to consider it as assessment notice. The Record and Proceedings notes Exh.65, which is a list for the documents, where the learned Judge has referred Exh.65, to note the income of the respondent as 40,800 in Dollars, and against that he had paid the income tax of 543 Dollar, therefore, Page 38 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined accordingly the learned Judge considered the respondent's income for the year 2014-15 as Rs.19,62,850/-, hence, has considered the yearly income of Rs.19,00,000/- and monthly income of Rs.1,63,000/-. The respondent is permanent resident of Singapore, and thus considering the Indian standard of living, has come to the conclusion of Rs.60 to 70 thousand as monthly income of the respondent, and, thus accordingly passed the order.

13. It is required to be noted that the document produced vide Exh.65 has not been put in evidence and has not been exhibited during the trial. The learned Judge thereupon has calculated the income of the respondent. The learned Judge has failed to consider Exh.54, the deposition of witness - Mohanbhai Lallubhai Umarvansi, sub-post master. The learned Judge was required to take into consideration mark 54/1, which is the statement of witness dated 14.03.2016, who has Page 39 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined again clarified on record of the Court that Mahila Recurring Agency, Code No.706, has ended on 30.10.2014. The learned Judge on assumption has considered the living standard of Singapore thrice than that of our country and concluded that the income would have been 60 to 70 thousand.

14. The judgment of Rajnesh Vs. Neha And Another , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, was declared on November 4, 2020, so prior to that the order of the Family Court was of 13.06.2016.

15. Along with the present matter, the petitioner has also filed Criminal Revision Application No.846 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Application No.881 of 2021. In Criminal Revision Application No.846 of 221, the petitioner, party- in-person has made a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by 13 th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2020 as well as order dated Page 40 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined 01.02.2020 passed below Exh.67 by the learned J.M.F.C., Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013.

15.1 The prayer was made vide Exh.55 to summon the respondent for the following details:

15.2 The prayer was made in the domestic violence case. It appears that the application below Exh.55 in Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013 came to be rejected on 25.03.2019 by 4th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat; while it is stated that the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013 is at the stage of final arguments.

16. In Criminal Revision Application No.881 of 2021, the challenge is being given to the order dated 03.12.2020 passed below Exh.74 by learned J.M.F.C., Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013, which was challenged before the appellate Court, and therefore the challenge has also been given to the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the 13th Additional Sessions Page 42 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021. 16.1 By application vide Exh.74, the prayer has been made by the petitioner before the closing purshish from both the sides, to examine;

(i) Kalpeshkumar Bhadreshkumar Mehta, (ii) Bhadresh H.Mehta, (iii) Sundaben Bhadreshkumar Mehta, (iv) shalini Bhadreshkumar Mehta and (v) Nalini Shalin Mehta. The said application was moved on the premise that the petitioner was under an understanding that those witnesses would be examined from the respondent side and she proposed to examine them to prove the domestic violence meted out to her. The petitioner has also stated that it would not prejudice the respondent and would comply the object of the Domestic Violence Act .

16.2 The learned J.M.F.C. in the order has observed that the said application was given to fulfill her motive and after closure from both the sides, the petitioner has not cited any Page 43 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined provision of law, and further observed that the petitioner cannot decide for the examination of the witnesses, and, thus the application was rejected.

16.3 The learned Judge having recorded the closing purshish from both the sides, has noted that it is for the petitioner to prove her case and cannot rely on the respondent, and referred to the provision of section 101 of the Evidence Act, and further a reference was made of section 311 of the Cr.P.C., and has also noted that Exh.67 has been rejected on merits with further observation that if respondent would not rebut the evidence, then the presumption can be drawn against her.

16.4 Both the orders passed below Exh.67 and Exh.74 in Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013 filed under Domestic Violence Act , have been challenged in Criminal Revision Application No.846 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Application Page 44 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined No.881 of 2021 respectively.

16.5 The provision under the Domestic Violence Act and that of section 125 of Cr.P.C. are not of a overlapping jurisdiction, as observed in Rajnesh Vs. Neha And Another (supra), wherein the judgment delivered in Vishal Vs. Aparna , reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom. 1207 was recognized to have taken a correct view, where the Court was considering the issue whether interim monthly maintenance awarded under Section 23 read with section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act could be adjusted against the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court held that the order passed under the D.V. Act and the Cr.P.C . were both independent proceedings, and adjustment was not permissible. The Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and held that Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under the Act, would be in addition to an order of Page 45 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and any other law for the time being in force. Sub- section (3) of Section 26 of the D.V. Act enjoins upon the aggrieved person to inform the Magistrate, if she has obtained any relief available under D.V. Act or in any other legal proceeding filed by her, whether before a Civil Court, Family Court, or Criminal Court. The object being that while granting relief under the D.V. Act , the Magistrate shall take into account and consider if any similar relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person. Even though proceedings under the D.V. Act may be an independent proceeding, the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal proceedings, while determining whether over and above the maintenance already awarded, any further amount was required to be granted for reasons to be recorded in writing.

17. This Court would not like to comment Page 46 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined upon the orders passed below Exh.67 and Exh.74 in Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013. The learned trial Court Judge is required to examine the facts on record in accordance with law and as per the provision laid down, as the matter is still in seisin of the court, it would be decided on merits. The learned Magistrate should follow the judgment of Rajnesh Vs. Neha And Another (supra), hence, without any observation of this Court, Criminal Revision Application No.846 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Application No.881 of 2021 stand disposed of with a clarity to place on record that this Court has not gone into the merits of the orders passed below Exh.67 and Exh.74 in Criminal Misc. Application No.795 of 2013.

17.1 The learned J.M.F.C. dealing with the matter under Domestic Violence Act has to decide the application independently without being influence by any observations of this Court in Page 47 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined the matters.

18. In main Criminal Revision Application No.776 of 2016, the petitioner has also moved an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2024 making a prayer to direct the respondent no.2 to pay all maintenance amount and to regularly pay and to pass an order to pay the compensation of rupees seven Lacs to the petitioner for mental, physical, social and economical torture incurred by respondent no.2, and to order to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses, and further to call for the documents as per the agreement between the Government of republic of India and the Government of Singapore executed on 29.06.2005 containing 22 articles concerning mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. The compensation amount can be decided under the D.V. Act proceeding before the learned Magistrate. Hence, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2024 is Page 48 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined disposed of with the direction to learned Magistrate in proceeding under D.V. Act to decide the same. It would be open for the parties to contend about the agreement between Government of India and Government of Singapore. 18.1 The case, as was urged and sought to be proved before the Family Court by the respondent was that the wife is earning and she is capable of earning. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha And Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue of wife earning some income. The respondent husband herein had examined three witnesses to prove the fact that the party-in- person was earning earlier to the marriage and also on the date of the petition before the Family Court. The witness of the postal department, sub-post master Mohanbhai Lallubhai Umarvansi, who was examined had clarified that agency of the petitioner stopped from 30.10.2014. The learned Family Court Judge after considering Page 49 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined the documents produced on record considers the annual income of the husband as Rs.19 Lacs per year and Rs.1,63,000/- per month. The witnesses were examined by the respondent to prove that earlier, prior to the marriage and at the time of petition the petitioner was earning some income; however, the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not having any permanent job; and the postal agency was also stopped in the year 2014.

18.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha And Another (supra) has dealt with this issue in paragraph no.90, and has referred to various judgment, which reproduced as under:

90.2 In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil Kachwaha , reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to Page 51 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined reject her claim for maintenance. 90.3 The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v Kalyani Sanjay Kale , reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom.694, while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

90.4 An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash , reported in 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the Page 52 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court.

90.5 This Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan , cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife."

18.3 The respondent has not proved his actual income. He has not disclosed his total earning; however, considering the evidence and standard of living, which is to be maintained of the wife, which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family, and looking to the fact that the respondent is working at Singapore and as per the say of the petitioner, the husband is working as Scientist in Temacek Laboratory at Singapore and is earning more than 7000 Singapore Dollar, and when husband is duty bound to provide Page 53 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined financial support to the wife, though wife is capable of earning because of educational qualification, but such educational qualification has not provided opportunity for a permanent employment, and considering the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance to the wife, this Court considers that the amount which has been ordered by the Family Court, would not be sufficient to maintain herself and to provide for all her daily needs.

19. In view of the above observations and discussions, the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Surat, in Criminal Misc. Application No.333 of 2013 is modified to the extent that the petitioner would now receive maintenance as Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e. 27.06.2013, instead of Rs.15,000/-. The Revision Application No.776 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly with the Page 54 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/776/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2024 undefined costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the revisionist by the present respondent no.2.

(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj Page 55 of 55 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 19 22:52:35 IST 2024