CM(M) No.823/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.823/2010 & CM No.11086/2010 Date of Decision: June 04, 2010 SH. MANISH JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Subodh Kumar, Advocate. versus SMT. SANGEETA JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None. % CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes J U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) 1. Parties to the petition were married on 11th May, 2005 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Since parties quarrelled with each other, they could not live together and started living separately. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for restitution of the conjugal rights. Respondent filed an application CM(M) No.823/2010 Page 2 of 3 under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner during pendency of the said petition. 2. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 1st May, 2010 allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application i.e. 17th December, 2009 besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Mr. Subodh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that Trial Court went wrong while awarding maintenance as it did not take into consideration the expenses of the petitioner and therefore, maintenance awarded to the respondent is on the higher side and beyond the capacity of the petitioner. 4. I find no force in his submissions. Petitioner is employed as Account Assistant in LG and Dr. Associates Pvt. Ltd. His monthly salary is Rs.14,250/-. Petitioner claimed that he is paying rent of Rs.4,000/- per month to his landlord since 1st August 2009, as he is residing in WZ-809, Near Bata Chowk, Palam vihar, New Delhi. While considering expenses of the petitioner towards rent, Trial Court noted that address given by the petitioner in the petition is C-6-A/30A, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It also noted that affidavit attached with the reply to the application also finds the CM(M) No.823/2010 Page 3 of 3 same address of the petitioner as given in the main petition. Under these circumstances, to my mind, Trial Court rightly observed that petitioner made endeavour to conceal his actual income and with a view to avoid payment of maintenance, he tried to mislead the court by stating that he was paying Rs.4,000/- per month as rent for the tenanted premises. Trial Court also took into consideration the entries made in the pass book of the petitioner pertaining to his bank account where it noted that petitioner was saving some money every month in the said account. 5. In view of these facts, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court. Trial Court was right in refusing to accept the alleged expenses disclosed by the petitioner in his reply. There cannot be two opinion that petitioner made every effort to conceal his correct income. Under these circumstances, I find no merits in this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. CM No.11086/2010 (for exemption) 6. Since petition has been dismissed, this application has become infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed accordingly. ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) JUNE 04, 2010/sb