Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tomar v. State of U.P

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is aged around 65 years. His marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 17.11. 1983 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The couple were blessed with a daughter, namely, Akansha in the year 1985 and the son was born in the year 1987. Revisionist was operating a factory, namely, REI Food Industry in Kashipur (Uttarakhand), however, said factory was closed due to huge financial liability incurred by the revisionist due to loss suffer in the business. Recovery warrant has been issued for a sum of Rs. 80,81,145.50/- issued against him in recovery proceedings and all the assets of the factory were sold through auction sale. The said auction notice is filed as annexure no. 1 to the second supplementary affidavit dated 2.12.2014.

4. He next submitted that respondent no. , who is wife of revisionist, is presently living with her son and this factor is not denied by her evidence. Her son earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and he posted in NIIT as Maths Instructor. Revisionist got an accident in the year 2011 in which his hand was fractured and a rod was inserted in his hand by surgical procedure due to which revisionist is unable to do any physical hard work. Learned court below initially awarded Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant but the said amount was enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of filing application dated 17.5.2017 in final judgement dated 5.5.2023 without assigning any cogent reason. He was paying huge sum of money Rs. 50,000/- per month towards house hold expenses to his wife and when his factory was operational; he also paid Rs. 12000/- per month towards rent of house and spent Rs. 30,000/- per month towards treatment of his wife. His financial condition has deteriorated after closer of his only factory. He also submitted that initially, revisionist was living at the place of his in- laws along with his wife and was operating the factory owned by his father-in-law. Respondent no. 2 is duly served and maintained by her son who is financially sound and she is living in better condition than the revisionist at present.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has been operating two factories. He is operating second factory after closure of first one and now he is running third factory after closure of previous two factories however the third factory is owned by his second wife, namely Pritima Goyal. The revisionist has concealed his income before learned court below and has not filed any document in support of his claim that now he has become jobless, before District Court through supplementary affidavit. Revisionist has given false name of his wife in marriage documents only to mislead the competent authorities.

6. The revision was decided by the documentary and oral evidence adduce by the parties. The revisionist has filed fresh document before revisional court only to shift his responsibility to maintain his deserted wife. The amount awarded in the impugned order is reasonable and revisionist is still having sufficient property to pay the amount awarded to the applicant as maintenance by learned court below.

7. On perusal of record, it appears that the revisionist was operating a factory, namely, REI Food Industry in Kashipur (Uttarakhand) as its proprietor, however, the firm was incurred heavily indebted to Punjab National Bank, Kashipur and the Rs. 80,81,145.50/- remained due with interest from 1.4.2016 to the Bank and due to none payment of outstanding dues, the factory was put to sell at the instance of Punjab National Bank through e- auction and public notice of sell. On 29.10.2018 entire assets of the firm were put on auction. The revisionist has filed his income tax return during the period 2017-2018, 2023-2024 to show that due to huge loss incurred in the business his annual income decreased gradually and only Rs. 3,25,280/- in assessment year 2023-2024.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tomar vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online 1539 has held that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income.

9. Learned court below has elaborately considered the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties in impugned judgement and order dated 5.5.2023 and has given finding that the applicant Sandhya Goyal is legally wedded wife of Ajay Goyal. She is living separately from her husband due to sufficient cause and learned court below has observed that although the opposite party has denied to have been in relationship with some other girl, namely Priti Goyal as suggested by the applicant but in his Rashan Card Paper No. 34B/15 his address is same as shown in vehicle registration paper of Priti Goyal. In Rashan Card Ajay Goyal is shown as head of the family and Priti Goyal as his wife. These documents have not been rebutted by learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned court below has also observed and given finding that applicant has filed certain documents and bank papers from list of papers filed on 28.2.2024 which reveals that Priti Goyal wife of Ajay Goyal is agent of M/s Vansh Enterprises. These papers also relate raising of loan on the property.

10. Learned court below has given finding that revisionist is able to maintain his wife whose independent source of income is not proved. The two children of applicant Sandhya have now become major and married. Applicant has filed her medical papers also on record. Opposite party has himself admitted that he has spent huge sum of money towards house hold expenses and medical expenses of his wife which shows his financial liability and viability.

11. Although, learned court below has observed in impugned judgement that factum of closure of a factory owned by opposite party is not proved yet from documents filed in present revision it appears that the factory REI Food Industry owned by the revisionist was closed in the year 2016 and assets were put to auction in the year 2018 even if it assumed that the revisionist is operating factory in Kashipur which is lying in the name of some Priti Goyal who is said to be second wife of the revisionist yet, said factory has also incurred huge loan from the Bank.

12. Considering rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement and order is liable to be reduced to some extent.

13. However, it is clarified that the general finding recorded by learned court below in the impugned judgement and order are found to be corrected on facts and evidence of the case. Therefore, it is directed the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement and order is reduced from Rs. 30,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month which is payable by the revisionist to respondent no. 2. The other terms and conditions imposed in the impugned order are not called for interference.

14. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 SY SUSHAMA YADAV SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is aged around 65 years. His marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 17.11. 1983 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The couple were blessed with a daughter, namely, Akansha in the year 1985 and the son was born in the year 1987. Revisionist was operating a factory, namely, REI Food Industry in Kashipur (Uttarakhand), however, said factory was closed due to huge financial liability incurred by the revisionist due to loss suffer in the business. Recovery warrant has been issued for a sum of Rs. 80,81,145.50/- issued against him in recovery proceedings and all the assets of the factory were sold through auction sale. The said auction notice is filed as annexure no. 1 to the second supplementary affidavit dated 2.12.2014.

4. He next submitted that respondent no. , who is wife of revisionist, is presently living with her son and this factor is not denied by her evidence. Her son earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and he posted in NIIT as Maths Instructor. Revisionist got an accident in the year 2011 in which his hand was fractured and a rod was inserted in his hand by surgical procedure due to which revisionist is unable to do any physical hard work. Learned court below initially awarded Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant but the said amount was enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of filing application dated 17.5.2017 in final judgement dated 5.5.2023 without assigning any cogent reason. He was paying huge sum of money Rs. 50,000/- per month towards house hold expenses to his wife and when his factory was operational; he also paid Rs. 12000/- per month towards rent of house and spent Rs. 30,000/- per month towards treatment of his wife. His financial condition has deteriorated after closer of his only factory. He also submitted that initially, revisionist was living at the place of his in- laws along with his wife and was operating the factory owned by his father-in-law. Respondent no. 2 is duly served and maintained by her son who is financially sound and she is living in better condition than the revisionist at present.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has been operating two factories. He is operating second factory after closure of first one and now he is running third factory after closure of previous two factories however the third factory is owned by his second wife, namely Pritima Goyal. The revisionist has concealed his income before learned court below and has not filed any document in support of his claim that now he has become jobless, before District Court through supplementary affidavit. Revisionist has given false name of his wife in marriage documents only to mislead the competent authorities.

6. The revision was decided by the documentary and oral evidence adduce by the parties. The revisionist has filed fresh document before revisional court only to shift his responsibility to maintain his deserted wife. The amount awarded in the impugned order is reasonable and revisionist is still having sufficient property to pay the amount awarded to the applicant as maintenance by learned court below.

7. On perusal of record, it appears that the revisionist was operating a factory, namely, REI Food Industry in Kashipur (Uttarakhand) as its proprietor, however, the firm was incurred heavily indebted to Punjab National Bank, Kashipur and the Rs. 80,81,145.50/- remained due with interest from 1.4.2016 to the Bank and due to none payment of outstanding dues, the factory was put to sell at the instance of Punjab National Bank through e- auction and public notice of sell. On 29.10.2018 entire assets of the firm were put on auction. The revisionist has filed his income tax return during the period 2017-2018, 2023-2024 to show that due to huge loss incurred in the business his annual income decreased gradually and only Rs. 3,25,280/- in assessment year 2023-2024.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tomar vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online 1539 has held that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income.

9. Learned court below has elaborately considered the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties in impugned judgement and order dated 5.5.2023 and has given finding that the applicant Sandhya Goyal is legally wedded wife of Ajay Goyal. She is living separately from her husband due to sufficient cause and learned court below has observed that although the opposite party has denied to have been in relationship with some other girl, namely Priti Goyal as suggested by the applicant but in his Rashan Card Paper No. 34B/15 his address is same as shown in vehicle registration paper of Priti Goyal. In Rashan Card Ajay Goyal is shown as head of the family and Priti Goyal as his wife. These documents have not been rebutted by learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned court below has also observed and given finding that applicant has filed certain documents and bank papers from list of papers filed on 28.2.2024 which reveals that Priti Goyal wife of Ajay Goyal is agent of M/s Vansh Enterprises. These papers also relate raising of loan on the property.

10. Learned court below has given finding that revisionist is able to maintain his wife whose independent source of income is not proved. The two children of applicant Sandhya have now become major and married. Applicant has filed her medical papers also on record. Opposite party has himself admitted that he has spent huge sum of money towards house hold expenses and medical expenses of his wife which shows his financial liability and viability.

11. Although, learned court below has observed in impugned judgement that factum of closure of a factory owned by opposite party is not proved yet from documents filed in present revision it appears that the factory REI Food Industry owned by the revisionist was closed in the year 2016 and assets were put to auction in the year 2018 even if it assumed that the revisionist is operating factory in Kashipur which is lying in the name of some Priti Goyal who is said to be second wife of the revisionist yet, said factory has also incurred huge loan from the Bank.

12. Considering rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement and order is liable to be reduced to some extent.

13. However, it is clarified that the general finding recorded by learned court below in the impugned judgement and order are found to be corrected on facts and evidence of the case. Therefore, it is directed the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement and order is reduced from Rs. 30,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month which is payable by the revisionist to respondent no. 2. The other terms and conditions imposed in the impugned order are not called for interference.

14. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 SY SUSHAMA YADAV SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad