Basic principle for appreciation of evidence in maintenance case
The other reason assigned by the learned Family Court Judge to reject the claim of the applicant is that she has failed to prove that the respondent husband is earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from his professional practice as a lawyer. Even this reasoning of the learned Judge cannot be accepted for the reason, that a bare reading of Section 24 of the Act. indicates that in case where there is a contest between the parties about the claim made, the onus rests on the applicant who claims maintenance to prove the assertion made in theapplication. In a situation where certain facts is within the knowledge of one party and if that party is unable to prove that fact with the documentary evidence, then it cannot be said that the evidence given by the wife regarding the income of her husband is unreliable and is to be rejected. In the present case, the applicant has lived with the respondent for nearly 18 years as his wife. She would definitely know the approximate income that her husband earns a month and merely because the applicant was unable to support her assertion with the help of documentary evidence, it cannot be said her evidence is unreliable and unbelievable. There may be some exaggeration because every Hindu wife intends to say that her husband is a man with high qualities and earns enough to give better comforts to the family members. A Hindu wife would never canvass that her husband is incapable of any earning but when the relationship is strained, she may exaggerate a little but her claim will not be so out of portion that Court's should straight away disbelieve it in view of non-production of documents in support of the claim. It is for the other party to produce enough reliable evidence to dispute the claim made by the wife. In the instant case, the respondent has taken care of his wife and children for nearly 18 years by taking care of the medical needs of the second petitioner and educating all the three children in reputed schools at Mysore. If his income is as meagre as he claims, he could not have maintained a big family consisting of himself, his wife and three children. It is not his case either before the Family Court or before this Court that his other members of his joint family were taking care of the needs of his wife and children. The respondent with his professional practice for nearly 25 years as a Lawyer has not even filed 'nil' income tax returns before the Income Tax authorities. He is careful enough not even to file vakalaths in his name nor maintain his case diary for recent years. In the absence of these documents also, I don't think the learned Family Court Judge should have wholly disbelieved the evidence of the respondent's wife about the income of the respondent, who has lived with him as his wife for nearly 18 years. In my view, it was for the respondent - husband to have produced proper, primary evidence to show that he has no income at all from his profession particularly when the factum of carrying on with the profession as a Lawyer is not disputed. If the husband does not disclose his income, it is for the Family court to rely on the evidence of the wife and assess her husband's income. That exercise is not done by the Family Court in the present case.
https://www.lawweb.in/2012/11/basic-principle-for-appreciation-of.html
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Padmavathi And Ors. vs C. Lakshminarayana on 21 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR 2002 Kant 424, I (2003) DMC 169, ILR 2002 KAR 4804
