A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Geeta Pandey was married to Sh. Shekhar Pandey (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') on 7. 2. 1999. One son master Gautam was born out of this wedlock on 15. 11. 99. Unfortunately, this matrimonial alliance was not successful and the couple was separated from each other on 17. 5. 2002. Master Gautam is with his mother since then. Both mother and son (hereinafter called the 'complainants') filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure on 24. 7. 2002 against the husband. Learned MM passed order dated 25. 9. 2003 fixing interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- for Smt. Geeta Pandey and rs. 2,000/- per month for master Gautam. The husband filed revision petition against this order. Vide judgment dated 7. 1. 2004 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance to Rs. 3,000/- and rs. 1,000/- per months respectively. Both the sides are aggrieved against this judgment. The husband filed Crl. M. C. No. 1194/2004 for further reduction in the interim maintenance awarded. On the other hand, the complainants have filed Crl. M. C. No. 4013-14/2004 challenging the order on the ground that the reduction in maintenance by the learned ASJ is wrong and the order of the learned MM be restored. This is how both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. ( 2 ) IT is reiterated that the order passed is for interim maintenance and the evidence is yet to be led by both the parties. The learned MM came to prima fade conclusion, on the basis of documents placed on record, that the husband was earning at least rs. 25,000/- per month even on conservative estimates. Reading of this order would further disclose that the complainant had stated that her husband was running business under the name and style M/s. Harsh Industries, Though this business was initially a partnership firm of sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey, father of Shekhar pandey and some other person, the said partnership was dissolved after the retirement of other partner and became sole proprietorship concern of Sh. Gopal dutt Pandey. Thereafter, Sh. Gopal Dutt pandey transferred the rights in this business in favour of Shekhar Pandey. Gopal Dutt Pandey, father of Shekhar pandey and some other person, the said partnership was dissolved after the retirement of other partner and became sole proprietorship concern of Sh. Gopal dutt Pandey. Thereafter, Sh. Gopal Dutt pandey transferred the rights in this business in favour of Shekhar Pandey. Telephone was installed in the business premises, which was in the name of M/s. Harsh Industries whose proprietor was shown as Chand shekhar Pandey and on this basis the complainant had stated that business was transferred in the name of Shekhar Pandey. ( 3 ) ORDER of the learned MM would further show that though it was accepted that after the dissolution of the partnership firm, sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey became the sole proprietor, it was denied that he had transferred this business in the name of shekhar Pandey. On the contrary, the case of the husband was that his parents have disowned him from their properties and he is working with Kuldeep Automobiles and getting Rs. 2,700/- per month as salary. Letter issued by some one in Kuldeep automobiles is also produced in support of the plea that he was doing job there and getting salary of Rs. 2,700/- per month. ( 4 ) THE learned MM has observed that at this stage only prima facie view could be taken. Though the business was in the name of Sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey as per the sales-tax certificate, but it pertained to the year 1983. The Court of MM also observed that as per the ledger account in respect of telephone expenses the transactions were in cash but none of the transactions are in respect of telephone No. 22243662, which was in the name of Shekhar Pandey being the proprietor of Harsh Industries. Transaction in respect of two more telephones was shown, one of them being 2183662 was again shown in the name/of chand Shekhar Pandey, proprietor of Harsh industries. The learned MM, in these circumstances, observed as under:- "before adverting further it would be appropriate to mention here that all the abovesaid rival contentions of the parties will adduce their respective evidence. At this stage only a prima facie opinion can be formed. However, in view of the above said documents on record th respondent seems to be a main of means. The contention that he has been disowned by his parents is not substantiated on record. At this stage only a prima facie opinion can be formed. However, in view of the above said documents on record th respondent seems to be a main of means. The contention that he has been disowned by his parents is not substantiated on record. as there is no such public notice placed by the respondent. The documents which are on record though is a matter of evidence but prima facie it is very clear that the respondent is in the capacity of earning, even taking a conservative View at least Rs. 25,000/- p. m. Accordingly, the maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of rs. 4,000/- p. m. to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/-p. m. to petitioner No. 2 would not be on the higher side though admittedly there is one more child higher side though admittedly there is one more child of the parties but since the petitioners have not claimed any maintenance on his behalf as well as he is not been made party therefore in the matter the maintenance aggregating to sum of rs. 6,000/- p. m. is granted to the petitioner herein w. e. f. July 2002. " ( 5 ) THE teamed ASJ in his judgment dated 7. 1. 2004" has observed that the learned mm had rightly discarded certificate produced from Kuldeep Automobiles alleging that the husband was working in the said firm at a salary of Rs. 2,700/- inasmuch as in his application for anticipatory bail filed on 5. 9. 2002 he himself averred that he was employed in his father's factory and, therefore; he was taking contradictory stand in respect of his employment. It may be stated that having regard to this contradiction for which learned counsel for the husband has no answer, he did not press the plea that the husband was employed with Kuldeep Automobiles and proceeded on the basis that he was in the business with his father. ( 6 ) HIS submission, however, was that the learned ASJ had opined that there was no basis for coming to the prima facie conclusion by the learned MM that the husband was having income of at least Rs. 25,000/- per month. ( 6 ) HIS submission, however, was that the learned ASJ had opined that there was no basis for coming to the prima facie conclusion by the learned MM that the husband was having income of at least Rs. 25,000/- per month. The learned ASJ in this behalf observed as under:- "on perusal of the overall record it appears that trial court has however not given any reason to draw a prima facie inference to the income of the husband being Rs. 25,000/- per month. The firm Harsh Industries as appears from the documents on record was earlier a partnership firm between the father of the husband and his brother and assuming that this firm has been converted into a sole proprietorship firm of the father alone this by itself cannot be treated as owned by the husband alone for the reason that his name appearing in the telephone bills as the proprietor of the firm. The stage of evidence yet to come and it would be open to the parties to lead evidence on this point. However fact remains that husband in the present case cannot be permitted to avoid payment. The question of means of him or sufficiency thereof is the fact in issue and plays an important part in determining the quantum of maintenance. On making this assessment of the overall situation it may be seen that fact of means of the Harsh Industries or the income of the husband is a fact within his exclusive knowledge. Husband seems to have preferred to keep this fact close to his chest and leaving the court to draw an inference of its own. The court in the present case has drawn his monthly income from the business of Harsh Industries as rs. 25,000/ -. It seems that it has skipped the attention of the Id. Court that this business even if presume to have come in the hands of the husband was through his father who is still alive. Nothing has been mentioned or stated on record that father of the husband was doing any other business. No such details have been given in the application of the petitioner wife. In such a situation the inference of income of Rs. 25,000/- p. m. cannot be considered as being income exclusive of the husband but may be treated as family income per month. No such details have been given in the application of the petitioner wife. In such a situation the inference of income of Rs. 25,000/- p. m. cannot be considered as being income exclusive of the husband but may be treated as family income per month. Nowhere in the complaint it has been pointed out that husband or his family consisting of other persons is possessing any vehicle or enjoying any other luxuries to reflect upon his financial status. So even if the income of the trial court that the income from the business is not less than rs. 25,000/- per month is held to be justified the same cannot be considered as not the exclusive income of the husband alone and being the family income the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/-per month to the petitioner's wife and Rs. 2000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2 would be on a higher side. The wife is entitied to enjoy the maintenance as per the status of the husband. In view of this the order is modified to the extent that maintenance to the petitioner no. 1/ wife is awarded at the rate of rs. 3000/- per month and to the son/ petitioner no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p. m. from the date from which the trial court has awarded the same. " ( 7 ) HE submitted that after observing that no reasons were given by the learned MM to draw a prima facie inference to the income of the husband being Rs. 25,000/- per month, the error committed by the learned asj was to still accept income of Rs. 25,000/- with only modification to treat the same as family income and not the exclusive income of the husband. He submitted that this was clearly a contradictory approach and the learned ASJ, in fact, fell into the same error even after accepting that there was no basis for arriving at the prima facie conclusion that the husband had income of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel for the husband to this extent seems to be correct. The learned ASJ has given varying reasoning. In the first instance he says that the trial court has not given any reasons to draw a prima facie inference to the income of the husband being Rs. 25,000/- per month. 25,000/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel for the husband to this extent seems to be correct. The learned ASJ has given varying reasoning. In the first instance he says that the trial court has not given any reasons to draw a prima facie inference to the income of the husband being Rs. 25,000/- per month. He also states that from the telephone bills alone it cannot be stated at this stage that the husband is the proprietor of the firm and that is a matter of evidence. Therefore, he states that income is to be treated as family income and not the income of the husband alone. However, while doing so, he accepts the income of family at rs. 25,000/- per month without stating how he is arriving at this figure when he himself comments that such an inference drawn by the learned trial court is not correct. ( 8 ) CONSCIOUS of this, even the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that this reasoning of the learned ASJ be discarded. However, he joined issues with the counsel for the husband that his income was not Rs. 25,000/- but much less. In view of this, I have examined the documents placed on record on the basis of which learned counsel for the complainants supported the prima facie finding of the learned MM that the income of the husband was not less than Rs. 25,000/- whereas counsel for the husband argued that the income from the business was very less as per the income tax returns. ( 9 ) RELIANCE was placed by the learned counsel for the husband on the income-tax return of Harsh Industries whose proprietor is shown as Sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey, namely, the father of the husband. He submitted that even if it is presumed that Shekhar pandey was working with his father and the income from the firm is to be treated as family income as per the income-tax return for the financial year ending 31,3. 2002 was only Rs. 80,540/- and it was Rs. 89,000/- for the financial year ending 31. 3. 2004. Therefore, according to him, the income of family was hardly Rs. 7,500/- per month and, therefore, the maintenance of rs. 4,000/- fixed by the revisional court also was excessive. 2002 was only Rs. 80,540/- and it was Rs. 89,000/- for the financial year ending 31. 3. 2004. Therefore, according to him, the income of family was hardly Rs. 7,500/- per month and, therefore, the maintenance of rs. 4,000/- fixed by the revisional court also was excessive. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the complainants, per contra, submitted that the income shown in the return was much less than the actual income. He argued that when the complainants were living with the husband, the minor son was studying in Summer Ville public School and his tuition fee was rs. 3,300/- per month, which was borne by the husband. He further submitted that if one examines the catalogue of products manufactured and sold by Harsh Industries, that would give an indication of the prosperous business being carried out by harsh Industries. He also pointed out that the amount spent on telephone bills of the business would show that these bills are of substantial amounts, which is not possible if the income is only Rs. 7,500/- per month. He also pointed out that the learned ASJ wrongly mentioned about the status of the family inasmuch as the husband's family has two houses. Factory where business was run was also owned by the family and he was the only son of his parents. They were employing two domestic servants. They had also taken insurance policies and the amount of premium paid was quite high. ( 11 ) THE complainants have placed documents on record to support their aforesaid contentions and some of which may be taken note of: (a) In the application dated 5. 9. 2002 given by the husband, while seeking bail in the case filed by the complainant/wife under Section 498a/406 IPC, the husband stated as under:- " (VIII) That the petitioner No. 1 is a business man manufacturing rings for curtains. Petitioner No. 2 is working as an employee in his father's factory. Petitioners are law-abiding citizens. They have never been involved in any criminal case. " In this application, thus, the husband admits that he is in the business whereas false plea is taken in the reply to the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. stating that he was working in Kuldeep automobiles at a meagre salary of Rs. Petitioners are law-abiding citizens. They have never been involved in any criminal case. " In this application, thus, the husband admits that he is in the business whereas false plea is taken in the reply to the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. stating that he was working in Kuldeep automobiles at a meagre salary of Rs. 2,700/- per month, which even otherwise cannot be believed as it is less than the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum wages Act. (b) On the lodging of the FIR by the complainant/wife under Section. 498a/406 IPC, premises of the husband were raided on 3. 9. 2002, which shows that at the time of this raid there were two domestic servants in the house, namely, Gopal and govind. Thus, husband and his family are keeping two domestic servants. (c) The husband and his parents have also taken certain insurance policies. Status report of these policies, as given by the Life Insurance corporation of India, are placed on record. The total yearly premium, as per these policies, would come to approximately Rs. 37,000/ -. (d) The documents are placed on record to indicate that fee of master gautam Pandey, paid to Summer Ville public School, Greater Noida (UP), was Rs. 3,300/-per month. (e) Complainants have also placed on- record the wedding card of the sister of the husband wherein ancestral property Naugaon, Baitalghat, Nainitaal and another property, namely, 176, asha Pushpa Vihar, Kaushambi, ghaziabad, belonging to the husband's family is shown. (f) Apart from the aforesaid documents, the complainants have also filed telephone bills of M/s. Harsh industries and photocopies of old and new catalogue of Harsh Industries to show that it is manufacturing more than 150 items. These documents amply demonstrate the life-style in which the family of the husband is living and his income cannot be less than Rs. 25,000/- as rightly opined by the learned MM. ( 12 ) IF the expenditure incurred on the aforesaid accounts is considered, it cannot be believed that the family would be having taxable income of Rs. 7,500/- per month only. I may quote here the observations of another Judge of this Court in the case of sh. Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde-CM (M) No. 40/2005 decided on 24. 4. 2007:- "19. As noted herein above, unfortunately, nobody pays proper taxes to the Government. Self employed persons seldom disclose their true income. 7,500/- per month only. I may quote here the observations of another Judge of this Court in the case of sh. Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde-CM (M) No. 40/2005 decided on 24. 4. 2007:- "19. As noted herein above, unfortunately, nobody pays proper taxes to the Government. Self employed persons seldom disclose their true income. Prudence and wordly wisdom gained by a judge before whom citizens of all stratas of society litigate it can always be used by a judge to broadly ascertain as to what is going on in the society. By no means, said knowledge can be used where law requires a fact to be conclusively proved. But where the law requires a Judge to form an opinion based on a host of primary data, a judge can formulate an opinion pertaining to the likely income from the capital assets of the husband. " ( 13 ) MOST important aspect, which is to be kept in mind, is that when master Gautam pandey was living with his father-Shekhar pandey, his school fee of Rs. 3,300/- per month plus other charges were being paid by his father. The husband was also spending on the medical treatment etc. of master Gautam Pandey (it is averred by the complainant/wife that master Gautam was suffering from Bronchial Asthma and medical certificate to this effect is filed showing that he was getting treatment from Sir Ganga ram Hospital, which fact is not denied by the husband ). However, after this separation the husband does not want to pay even total amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to both child and wife. In this backdrop, even the learned MM rightly observed that "fact of means of Harsh industries or the income of the husband is a fact within his exclusive knowledge" and the "husband seems to have preferred to keep this fact close to his chest and leaving the court to draw an inference of its own. " ( 14 ) WHEN we draw the inference from the aforesaid material placed on record, I am of the opinion that there was no reason to reduce the maintenance fixed by the learned MM, which was not excessive and if at all, would be on lower side. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned ASJ is set aside and the order passed by the learned mm is maintained. ( 15 ) CRL. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned ASJ is set aside and the order passed by the learned mm is maintained. ( 15 ) CRL. M. C. No. 4013 - 14/2005 filed by the complainants is allowed and Crl. M. C. Nos. 1194/2004 filed by the husband is dismissed. The arrears of maintenance shall be paid at the revised rates within two months. The husband shall also start paying the future maintenance at the aforesaid rate henceforth.