JUDGMENT : Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya waives service of rule for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 1. By way of this petition filed u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”), the Application No.1411 of 2017, whereby in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 125 of the Code, the learned Family Judge granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- to the deserted wife and Rs.2500/- to the minor child commencing from 30.11.2017. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaghani for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya for the private respondents and learned APP. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order in two counts. Firstly, there was five years marriage span between both the parties. He would further submit that the wife has left the matrimonial home on her own, as there was some financial loss earned by the husband. Pressing into service section 125(4) of the Code, he would submit that since the wife without reason has left the matrimonial home, she is not entitled to any maintenance amount u/s 125 of the Code. He would further submit that the learned Family Judge has not considered the income aspect of the husband in its true perspective. The husband has already suffered huge loss in his business and yet, without considering that aspect, the learned Family Judge has granted alimony to the wife in absence of desertion thereof. Thus, he requests to interfere with the impugned order as far as it favours the wife and he is not assailing the impugned order as far as granting maintenance to the minor child. He would further submit that the parents of the wife has used the wife as a tool to settle the loss suffered the loss arrived at between the brother-in-law and the petitioner. In that circumstances, he requests to allow this petition under revisional jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya appearing for the private respondents would submit that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home once the business relationship between the brother-in-law and the petitioner has been ceased and the loss has been occasioned. In that circumstances, he requests to allow this petition under revisional jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya appearing for the private respondents would submit that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home once the business relationship between the brother-in-law and the petitioner has been ceased and the loss has been occasioned. He would further submit that it can be presumed that the wife shall not come out from the matrimonial home unless she has been subjected to mental or physical cruelty and she has been deserted. He would further submit that moreover, the petitioner did not place on record any income proof before the learned Family Judge, but the wife place the income tax returns of the year 2016. He would further submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha And Another, 2020 AIJEL SC 66659, both the parties are required to place on record the statement of liability and income on oath, but in the present case, the petitioner has failed to do so. He would further submit that according to the guess work, the learned Family Judge believed that the husband is earning Rs.3.5 lakh – 4 lakh per annum and considering that aspect, the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Judge is true and correct and it is not required to be interfered. Thus, he prays to dismiss this petition. 5. In rejoinder, Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has cleared all the arrears of maintenance to show his bona fide. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, at the outset, what appears that pleading is made by the deserted wife regarding the physical and mental torture at the hands of the husband. Even, evidence to that effect is also produced before the learned Family Judge. There is a thin line difference between leaving the matrimonial home and driven out of the matrimonial home and the wife, who is having marriage span of five years with the husband, if get out of the matrimonial home, presumption attracts that she was subjected to physical or mental cruelty, may not be upto the standard as stated in section 498 of the IPC, but yet, it is sufficient to draw presumption that she was deserted. The learned Family Judge has thoroughly examined this aspect. 7. The learned Family Judge has thoroughly examined this aspect. 7. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of this Court in case of Ansuyaben Hemantsinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1986 (2) GLR 1303 , this Court drew the inference that normally, a Hindu woman coming not coming from highly educated urban society would not, after the birth of children and several years of married life, leave the matrimonial home unless the life in the matrimonial house is a danger. This Court in para 10 observed thus:- “10. The lower courts have held that the petitioner was taken away by her father and therefore, it was not the opponent who refused or neglected to maintain her. This is nothing but a perverse way of looking at the matter. The petitioner's father was not keen to take the petitioner at his house. Her father had not come to the opponent to take the petitioner with him in ordinary course. He was required to take the help of the police. Through the D.S.P., the police authorities at Wankaner were informed to give help to the petitioner's father. The police authorities had to see that safe custody of the petitioner be given to the petitioner's father. Therefore, simply because the petitioner's father came to take custody of the petitioner from the opponent, it can never be said that the opponent had not refused or had not neglected to maintain her. It was he (the opponent-husband) and his family members who had created an impossible situation for the petitioner. In such a situation, unless there was danger to her life, she would not have called her father to take her away. The natural conduct of a married wife having two children and who had lived with her husband for about eight years would be that only as a last resort she would leave her matrimonial house. This is not a case of an urban elite society girl, in whose case it may be said that on the ground of minor trouble or quarrels, she may leave her husband's house.” 8. Even, in the present case also, the petitioner left the matrimonial home when the minor child was aging 02 years. On above reason, the first submission of Learned advocate for the petitioner falls to ground. 9. Even, in the present case also, the petitioner left the matrimonial home when the minor child was aging 02 years. On above reason, the first submission of Learned advocate for the petitioner falls to ground. 9. As far as another argument of granting Rs.5000/- to the wife being excessive is concerned, it is to be noted that section 106 of the Evidence Act comes into picture. The husband, who is the person knowing the fact of income is required to produce and establish his income, otherwise, adverse inference can be drawn. A reference can be made of the decision of this Court in case of Arunaben Davda Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1080 . The relevant para is 3, which reads as under:- “3. It may be mentioned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found respondent No. 2 herein (the husband of the petitioner) to have concealed and suppressed his real income from the Court. After recording this finding, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the income of the husband could be Rupees 1200 per month. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner in her evidence deposed to the effect that her husband's income was to the tune of Rupees 1500 per month. What was the income of the husband was certainly within his special knowledge. It was his duty to have disclosed to the Court his correct income. In fact the burden to prove his income which was within his special knowledge was on him in view of Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act' for brief). If a party in possession of the best evidence within his special knowledge does not produce the best evidence before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn again such party in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar V/s. Mohamed Haji Latif and Others reported in AIR 1968 SC at page 1413. In that case the adverse inference would be to accept the other side's case in that regard in toto.” 10. In the present case, the wife has filed the income tax returns of the year 2016 in the matter filed in the year 2017. It was the duty of the husband to submit his income tax returns, but he failed to do so. In the present case, the wife has filed the income tax returns of the year 2016 in the matter filed in the year 2017. It was the duty of the husband to submit his income tax returns, but he failed to do so. In these given circumstances, the learned Family Judge on the guess work came to the conclusion that husband is earning Rs.3.5 lakh – 4 lakh per annum and also reached to the conclusion that to live distinctive life, the wife is required Rs.5000/- and minor child is required Rs.2500/- as monthly maintenance. I see no illegality in the impugned order. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and stands dismissed. 12. Since the wife was dragged to litigation unnecessarily, cost of Rs.5000/- is imposed upon the husband, which the husband shall pay directly to the wife within a week from the receipt of this order. Rule discharged.