1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 459 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 459 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 459 OF 2007 with CIVIL APPLN. NO. 345 OF 2007 Dr. Nilkanth Vishanathrao Jangam ..Applicant Versus Sou. Aparna Nilkanth Jangam ..Respondent Mr.R.N.Kachare, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. A.V.Pathan, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant-husband has field a Marriage Petition for divorce before the Family Court, Pune. In that petition, the respondent-wife filed two applications under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 2 According to her, the husband is earning Rs.1 lakh per month and she has no source of income. Therefore, by her application Ex.18, she sought interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. By another application Ex.15, she sought direction to the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- to meet the expenses of the litigation because she is residing at Nanded and every time she is required to travel from Nanded to Pune to attend the Court. The husband contended that he is a homoeopathic doctor and his income is not so much. He did not disclose his income. The trial Court noted that in the wedding card, itwas shown that the husband was attending two clinics in Pune and therefore he must be having lucrative practice. With these observations, the trial Court directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance. These orders are challenged in the present Revision Application by the husband. 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the revision-applicant made a statement that he will not press the revision to the extent of the impugned order pertaining to costs of litigation. On perusal of the record and after hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner-husband has not disclosed the income before the trial Court. He has also not produced the copy of 3 the reply to the application Exhibit 18. Today, the learned Counsel for the applicant-husband made a statement that the husband has submitted income-tax returns and his income is Rs.1,05,000/- per month. However, admittedly, neither such plea was taken before the trial Court nor any such document was produced before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court was not in a position to consider any such evidence. 4. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I do not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, the Revision stands dismissed. 5. As the Revision Application is disposed of, the C.A. No.345 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)