SEEMA TRIPATHI Vs. SURINDER DHAR DIWEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is directed against the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge on an application filed by the Petitioner (wife) herein under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed primarily on the ground that Petitioner had concealed vital information from the Court that she was running a beauty parlour in the premises (where she was residing) besides receiving rental income from the first floor and second floor of the same premises bearing No. R -3/86, Newada Housing Complex, Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, Najaf Garh Road, New Delhi.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned trial court has misdirected itself as the Petitioner was neither running a beauty parlour nor she was receiving rent from the tenants, occupying the first floor and second floor of the abovesaid property. Counsel further submits that Respondent is a man of means and the income tax return placed on record of the trial court shows the monthly income of the Respondent to be Rs. 8500/ -, per month, cannot be relied upon, as a person earning Rs. 8500/ -, per month, cannot purchase two houses, particulars of which have been placed on record and are not denied by the Respondent, and also would not be in a position to maintain a car. Counsel also submits that Petitioner has no source of income and she is solely dependent on her parents for financial support. Counsel next submits that the estimated income of the Respondent is about Rs. 1.00 lakh, per month. Counsel submits that Respondent is a Pandit by profession and makes horoscopes, which fact was admitted by the Respondent before the trial court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that her stand is vindicated as during the pendency of this matter and with a view to ascertain whether the Petitioner was running a beauty parlour or not and also as to whether the aforesaid property was tenanted and as to who was receiving the rent, a Local Commissioner was appointed, who has filed her report, in which, on the basis of information sought from the neighbours, it has been stated that Petitioner is not running any beauty parlour, although, a beauty parlour was being run four or five years back and that too only for a period of two or three months. Another finding has been given by the Local Commissioner that there are no tenants in the said property.