(1.) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.12.2004 passed on an application of the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
(2.) The trial court considered the evidence on record including the testimonies recorded. The allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent was earning Rs 5,000/- per month from tuitions and stitching was found to have no basis. In fact during cross examination of PW2 in respect of his affidavit making this averment it was stated that the witness did not even remember that he had stated so. Thus the respondent was found to be without any income.
(3.) Insofar as the means of the petitioner are concerned, the allegation of the respondent was that he was earning Rs 50,000 per month. The petitioner was alleged to be running a business under the name and style of M/s Arihant Casting Private Limited. The trial court found that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies. The petitioner stated that he was employed in a factory at B-56, Mange Ram Park. The employer of the petitioner admitted in the witness box that he was an income tax assessee but could not produce any document to show that the petitioner was employed with him or that he was paying any salary to the petitioner. The trial court thus rightly found that the story of petitioner's employment with Mr.Munna Lal at a salary of Rs 2,000 per month was false and concocted set up only with the object of minimising the liability to pay maintenance.