PANKAJ BHATIA Vs. SHWETA BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16th November 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge under Sections 25 and 26 of hindu Marriage Act (HMA) on an application of the wife (respondent herein)whereby she granted maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month for the wife and the child and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(2.) IN her application the wife had claimed that the petitioner was running a motor garage in the name and style of M/s Pankaj Motors at the premises bearing number F-15, West Patel Nagar and he was having 5/6 employees. He had monthly income of more than Rs. 60,000/ -. He was having his own house and a car and leading a luxurious life. She herself had no source of income and did not have sufficient means to sustain and maintain herself and the child. In response, the husband (petitioner herein) denied that he was running a motor garage and stated that he was earlier in a private job on a salary of Rs. 12,00/- per month plus two meals a day but after the litigation with the wife, he has been thrown out of his job and presently he was jobless. In respect of his wife he stated that his wife was working as a receptionist in a private company and was earning Rs. 3000 per month as salary. She was also giving tuitions earning Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2000/- per month from tuitions. She was also having additional qualification of cooking, beauty parlor job and was earning Rs. 2500 per month from these qualifications.

(3.) DURING pendency of the application under Section 24, a photocopy of salary certificate was produced by the husband before Trial Court showing his salary as Rs. 2200 per month from a private employer. Learned ADJ observed that the period of the salary certificate produced by husband was the same during which the husband claimed that he was unemployed. Husband had not placed on record the original salary certificate but only a photocopy of the same. The learned trial court also found that the husband had filed a petition for custody and guardianship of the child wherein he stated that he was a self employed person and was working as a car mechanic. He had reasonable income from his self-employment so as to maintain the child and have the custody and guardianship of the child. The trial court found that the husband has not approached the court with clean hands and the averments made about his being employed at a month salary of Rs. 1200 or Rs. 2200 were all false.