IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 147 of 2010 Date of decision:1.3.2011. Lakhan Pal …Petitioner. Versus Smt. Punam …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 17.2.2010 whereby he has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent-Punam by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is only an employee in the stone crusher getting Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sundernagar after passing of the order of learned District Judge, Bilaspur has also passed an order for grant of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. per month under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The grievance of the : 2 : petitioner is that both the Courts below have granted Rs. 1,000/- each per month i.e. totaling Rs. 2,000/- per month, whereas the income of the petitioner is only Rs. 3,000/- per month. 3. The respondent-wife along with her reply has stated that petitioner-husband is mis-stating the facts that he is a lowly paid employee and according to her the petitioner-husband on 18th May, 2009 had purchased a Tata Indica V2 Car, the cost of which is Rs.3,66,000/-. 4. The husband had not denied the factum of purchase of car, but according to him he could not repay the amount of loan which he had taken from the financier and therefore the car was sold to one Shri Sanjeev Kumar and the financier had issued notice to him. Even if the car was taken on loan, it means that the petitioner-husband was willing to pay installments running into Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month if not more. This clearly shows that his averments that he was getting a salary of only Rs. 3,000/- per month are totally false. In view of this false averments made by him, he is not entitled to get any relief and the petition is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge March 1, 2011 (guleria)