JUDGMENT : A.P. Ravani, J. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of opponent No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is the son born out of lawful wed-lock between the parties. The petitioners filed Application for maintenance against opponent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was resisted by opponent No. 1. On over all appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner wife was entitled to Rs. 350/- per month and by way of maintenance while minor Kalpesh kumar was entitled to Rs. 150/- per month as and by way of maintenance. Thus the Trial Court directed opponent No. 1 to pay the amount of maintenance as stated here-in-above. 2. Opponent No. 1 felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court and preferred Criminal Revision Application in the Court of Sessions Judge at Rajkot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Morvi who heard the Revision Application partly allowed the Revision Application directing that the amount of maintenance payable to petitioner No. 1 wife should be Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. 350/- per month. He, however, maintained the amount of maintenance payable to minor son Kalpesh- kumar, petitioner No. 2. The petitioners have preferred this application and have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the trial court has committed an error in taking into account the circumstances that while disposing of the proceedings for judicial separation taken out by the opponent- husband some time in the year 1975, the learned District Judge had directed to pay an amount of Rs. 400/- per month as and by way of maintenance. As found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in fact the amount ordered to be paid by the opponent husband to the petitioner-wife as and by way of interim alimony was Rs. 175/- only. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also thought that it was not open to the Trial Court to draw an inference on the basis that when the workers in the shop of the opponent-husband were earning Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per day (about Rs. 1,000/- per month), the income of the opponent-husband who was one of the partners in the firm would not be less than Rs. 2,000/- per month. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per day (about Rs. 1,000/- per month), the income of the opponent-husband who was one of the partners in the firm would not be less than Rs. 2,000/- per month. On this basis the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the reduction of Rs 150/- per month and ordered that the opponent-husband should pay Rs. 200/- per month as and by way of maintenance to the petitioner-wife and he maintained the judgment and order regarding the amount of maintenance payable to minor Kalpeshkumar. 4. It is true that the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the Trial Court had taken an erroneous circumstance into consideration viz. that in the matrimonial proceedings. an amount of Rs. 400/- was directed to be paid as interim alimony. Moreover, as held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge there was a mistake in taking the salary of the employees in the firm as the basis for determination of income of the opponent-husband. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge has forgotten the basic principles for appreciation of evidence laid do was by the Supreme Court as far back as in the year 1968 in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohmmed Haji Latif and others, reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court at page 1413. In that case the Supreme Court has held that a party in possession of best evidence which would thrown light on the issue in controversy, cannot withhold the same and rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the opponent-husband is a partner in the firm. This also a proved fact that as per the income tax assessment of the year 1978 produced on record, his income was Rs. 79,723/-. According to him, in the year 1980-81, his income was only Rs. 2.325/- though the income of the firm was Rs. 1,16.213/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the documents in this connection have not been produced by the petitioner husband but at the same time the advocate for the applicant i. e. the wife, had not called for the same. 2.325/- though the income of the firm was Rs. 1,16.213/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the documents in this connection have not been produced by the petitioner husband but at the same time the advocate for the applicant i. e. the wife, had not called for the same. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof and threw the burden on the petitioner-wife and held that it was for the petitioner-wife to submit an application anti request for appropriate directions regarding the production of relevant documents. As held by the Supreme Court, the application was not at all necessary. It was the bounden duty of the opponent husband to produce all the relevant documents and he ought to have produced the evidence which was in his possession. When he has failed to produce this evidence on record, the Trial Court was justified in drawing the adverse inference against him. It is true that, when the Trial Court took the salary of the workmen as basis and thereafter drew the inference regarding the income of the husband, the Trial Court committed a mistake. But ultimately the finding arrived at by the Trial Court was quite just and proper. If the Trial Court failed to place its decision on the correct principles of law, it was the duty of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to look at the law and apply the correct principles of law. Instead the learned Additional Sessions Judge has applied incorrect principles of law and has come to a wrong conclusion. It can be said that the Trial Court has by implication followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and has come to the correct conclusion, while the learned Additional Sessions Judge has followed erroneous principles and has come to a wrong conclusion. Thus the judgment, and order passed by the Trial Court being eminently just and proper, it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to interfere with the same, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. At the most in the facts and circumstances of the case, after pointing out the mistakes, he ought not to have interfered with the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court. 5. In the result the application is allowed. At the most in the facts and circumstances of the case, after pointing out the mistakes, he ought not to have interfered with the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court. 5. In the result the application is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Morvi in Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 1984 dated 29-11-1984 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Vankaner in Criminal Case No. 48 of 1982, dated 24th November, 1983 is restored. Rule made absolute accordingly. Appeal allowed.