ANURAG MITTAL Vs. SHIKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I shall dispose of these two petitions, one filed by husband and other filed by wife against the order passed by the learned additional District Judge under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act whereby she granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife and also directed that the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as one time litigation expenses.

(2.) THE husband had filed a petition for annulment of marriage under section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act. Husband in this case is LLB MBA and son of a renowned Advocate. The wife disclosed to the Court that he was working as head of 'sales and Marketing Department in an organization viz. Business 2 Media, delhi and was having very high income, living a luxurious and expensive lifestyle. She stated that salary of husband was between Rs. 60,000/- to rs. 70,000/- per month. He was also having other sources of income and the total income of the husband was between Rs. 90,000/- and 1,00,000/- per month. About herself, she disclosed that she was working on ad hoc basis in Modern school and was getting only a conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. She had no other source of income. She gave the details of the luxurious lifestyle of the husband, stating the he was having an Accent Car bearing no. DL2c W4576, GVS model. He was having a laptop, air conditioners, refrigerator, mobile phone, computer etc. She gave the mobile phone and other phone numbers of the husband. She also disclosed to the Court, the insurance policy being held by the husband and disclosed the account numbers of the husband of HDFC bank and Bank of baroda. She also stated that husband was using credit cards of various banks.

(3.) THE Learned Trial Court in its order categorically observed that the application under Section 24 for consideration was made on 15th October, 2004 The husband filed preliminary reply on 18th March, 2005 and despite lapse of considerable time he did not care to file further reply, although, he moved numerous applications since then, which were disposed of by the Court. It was further observed by the Trial Court that the husband had not denied that he does not have the responsibility of any other family member. He was LLB MBA and the husband had not denied the averments made by the applicant that he was earning between Rs. 90,000/- to 1,00,000/- per month in the reply. He had also not denied the assertions of wife about movable and immovable properties. The husband himself did not care to disclose his income or source of income and the properties owned by him.