47. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 01.09.2010 + CM(M) 1127/2010 MAN MOHAN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. S.S. Gautam and Mr. H.S. Gautam, Advs. versus SAPNA ..... Respondent Through : NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) + CM NO.15840/2010 (EXEMPTION) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exception. 2. Application stands disposed of. CM NO.15839/2010. 3. Dismissed. + CM(M)NO.1127/2010. 4. Present petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2010, which has been passed on an application filed by the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an unemployed person and has no source of income. Counsel further submits that respondent is running a tuition centre as also a beauty parlor and, thus, she does not require any maintenance. 6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. In this case, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.2.2009, no child was born out of their wedlock. Parties have been residing separately since 26.6.2009. I have carefully examined the order passed by the trial court. Learned trial court has observed that in the reply filed by the petitioner to the respondent’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed in the petition bearing no.396/09, the husband (petitioner herein) has stated that he is doing work of making pearl necklaces at a jewellery shop and is earning ` 2500/- per month. The trial court has further observed that in the reply filed in HMA No.55/2010, the petitioner has stated that he was working as a peon at the time of marriage in a shop. 7. The trial court has taken into consideration the contentions of both the parties. The trial court has dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner and granted maintenance to the wife of `2595/- per month. 8. It will be useful to refer to the case of Abhishek Khanna v. Ritika Seth, reported at 146 (2008) DLT 316 wherein this Court has observed that tendency is not to disclose the income truthfully when a dispute between the husband and the wife occurs and, thus, the Court is forced to take a general view. Petitioner has not produced a single document in support of his plea that the wife is working. Petitioner has also not placed his salary slip to show his last drawn salary. The trial court has also noticed that in the proceedings filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act `2595/-, per month, has been fixed as maintenance, but the petitioner withdrew the said petition. Stand of the petitioner in the said petition and the reply in the present petition is also contradictory. 9. In view of above, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court taking into consideration the price index and also the fact that maintenance, so granted, should not be so low that the order becomes meaningless. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed. G.S. SISTANI, J. September 01, 2010 'msr’