C.R. No.1111 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1111 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.2.2008 Ram Rattan Goyal .....Petitioner Vs. Smt.Savita ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Avinash Chander Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner challenges an order dated 5.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, granting maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife besides Rs.3,000/-p.m. for their minor daughter. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court, ignored the fact that the petitioner has no income of his own and is working with his father, who is running a business in the name and style of M/s Ramesh Chand Ram Rattan at Ballabhgarh. For the year 2007-2008, Ramesh Chand Goyal (the petitioner's father) has disclosed an income of Rs.83,250/- for the year 2005-06 Rs.87,730/-, for 2004-05 Rs.75,360/- and for 2003-04 Rs.62,660/-. It is, therefore, apparent that even if, the income accruing to the petitioner's father is considered, the respondent could not have been granted such a steep rate of maintenance pendente-lite. It is further sumitted tht the petitioner had initially filed a petition for restitution C.R. No.1111 of 2008 2 of conjugal rights, which was withdrawn, as the respondent refused to resume cohabitation, compelling the petitioner, to file a petition for grant of divorce. It is, therefore, asserted that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance, much less the maintenance assessed by the learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The learned trial Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent-wife and Rs.3,000/-p.m. to their minor girl child. As noticed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner did not produce his own Income Tax Return but merely asserted that he had no independent income and was working with his father in a firm M/s Ramesh Chand Ram Rattan at Ballabhgarh. In the year ending 31.3.2001, the firm has shown a total income of Rs.3,66,008/- and thereafter, though the income shows a decline but as the petitioner concealed his income and did not produce any Income Tax Return, the petitioner's assertion that he is merely working with his father appears to be incorrect. The petitioner has concealed material particulars, with respect to his status in the firm, as also the income in respect thereof. The petitioner's assertion that he had to withdraw the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, as the respondent did not resume cohabitation would be considered during adjudication of the petition for grant of divorce. The respondent-wife has to maintain herself, as also a minor girl child. The amount assessed by the learned trial Court as maintenance pendente-lite, in my considered opinion, in view of the status of the parties, is just and appropriate. Dismissed. 25.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE