C.R. No. 5273 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 19959-CII of 2007 in C.R. No. 5273 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.8.2009 Sanjay Sharma .......... Petitioner Versus Nandi ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.8.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirsa, on an application moved under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite. The respondent / wife claimed maintenance pendente lite @ 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only ) per month along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- ( Rupees five thousand and five hundred only ) on the plea, that the petitioner was A-Class contractor and was having an income of Rs. 40,000/45,000/- per month, whereas she being unemployed C.R. No. 5273 of 2007 2 had no independent source of income. The petition was contested, wherein the husband / respondent took a stand, that though earlier he used to be a contractor, but now he is working under a contractor and was earning a very meager salary of Rs. 3500/- ( Rupee three thousand and five hundred only ) per month. The learned matrimonial Court held, that the document placed on record showed the income of the petitioner to be in lacs. The income tax returns were placed on record showing, that the petitioner was income tax assessee. In view of the documents and the evidence brought on record, the learned matrimonial Court rejected the certificate produced by the petitioner showing, that he was working as employee of the Society at a salary of Rs. 3500/- ( Rupees three thousand and five hundred only ). Keeping in view the status of the parties the learned matrimonial Court fixed the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only ) per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground, that the learned Matrimonial Court failed to consider the present status of the petitioner and assessed the income by taking into consideration the income of previous years. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the petitioner was black listed, therefore, was not allowed to carry on the work as a contractor. It was for this reason that, he has been working under different contractor. His income, therefore, could not be assessed at more than Rs. 3500/- ( Rupees three thousand and five hundred only ) per month as claimed by him. C.R. No. 5273 of 2007 3 It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned matrimonial Court wrongly granted maintenance pendente lite from the date of application whereas it should have been from the date of order. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The very fact, that the petitioner has taken the stand that he was working under a contractor and drawing Rs. 3500/- as salary clearly shows that he had not approached the Court with clean hands, and was concealing his income. It cannot be believed that A-Class contractor would start work at Rs. 3500/- ( Rupees three thousand and five hundred only ) per month. The stand of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned Court. The learned Matrimonial Court was fully justified in granting the maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, keeping in view the status of the parties. No ground for interference is made out, with the order passed by the learned matrimonial Court. No merit. Dismissed. 19.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE