Smt. Laxmi Soni And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The revisionists, a wife and her minor son, challenged an order dated 15.11.2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur. This order, passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 723 of 2021, enhanced their monthly maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the son). The revisionists argued that the enhanced amount was paltry, failing to account for the son's schooling expenses, rising cost of living, and the husband's concealed income from his pharmaceutical shop. They contended the husband, a qualified pharmacist, deliberately understated his earnings. The husband argued the trial court's order was well-reasoned and that maintenance could be enhanced later if circumstances changed. He also claimed he was merely an employee at the shop owned by his elder brother.

Held

The Court found that the husband, a qualified pharmacist running a pharmaceutical shop with his elder brother, had failed to provide documentary proof regarding his income or his status as a mere employee. Specifically, he did not submit documents like salary slips or GST returns for the shop's turnover. This lack of documentation indicated an effort to conceal and suppress his income. The Court also noted that the husband was already paying Rs. 4,500/- per month under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Considering the prevailing inflation, housing and education costs, and basic survival needs, the maintenance awarded by the trial court was deemed inadequate. Consequently, the maintenance for the wife was enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month, and for the minor son from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. This enhanced rate was made applicable from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that failure to produce documentary evidence of income, coupled with the established fact of running a business, raises a presumption of income concealment, necessitating an upward revision of maintenance to meet the increased cost of living and educational expenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is inadequate, considering the increased educational and living expenses of the revisionists and the alleged concealed income of the respondent-husband. Petitioner's Arguments: The revisionists argued that the maintenance awarded was insufficient. They highlighted the son's commencement of schooling, necessitating educational expenses, and the general increase in the cost of living. They further contended that the respondent-husband, a qualified pharmacist operating a pharmaceutical shop, had concealed his true income, and the trial court had conservatively estimated it. The revisionists sought a minimum maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, based on the husband's qualifications and business. Revenue/State's Arguments: The husband (Opposite Party No. 2) argued that the trial court had passed a well-reasoned order, duly considering his profession. He asserted that there was no documentary proof of his alleged high monthly income (Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 1 lakh). He also submitted that maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could be enhanced in the future based on changed circumstances. He prayed for the dismissal of the revision.