ANIL KUMAR Vs. MANISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition is the order of Trial Court dated 21st January 2010, whereby on an application of the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to be as the Act), it awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to daughter Devika, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 7,000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that petitioner is not running a canteen but is an employee therein and is getting Rs. 3,000/- per month only. It is pertinent that Trial Court had granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to place on record his salary certificate and detailed bank statement for one year. Despite these directions and opportunities granted to the petitioner, he failed either to file his salary statement or statement of the bank account. This fact was noted down by Trial Court in para 12 of the impugned order as below:-

(3.) Respondent has specifically averred in the petition that petitioner is running a canteen in Ghazipur Vidya Bharti School and is earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month. Besides, he is running a Prashad shop at Balaji Mandir, Vasundhara and is earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month. She has further averred in the petition that petitioner has approximate income of Rs. 10,000/- from selling candies, toffees, biscuits, namkeens. According to her, petitioner is earning about Rs. 30,000/- per month. Since petitioner has failed to substantiate his defence that he was only an employee in the canteen and had no other income except Rs. 3,000/- by producing relevant documents before the Trial Court, to my mind, it rightly assessed his income at Rs. 10,000 12,000/- per month and consequently awarded consolidated maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to wife and the child.