BHUVNESHWAR SACHDEVA Vs. KAVITA SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.12.2017 by which an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance has been allowed. The Family Court has fixed the maintenance @15,000/- per month.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent/wife has been working and her income has not been considered while fixing the maintenance. It is also contended before us that the Family Court has passed the order fixing the maintenance without taking note of the fact that the appellant is barely earning Rs.10,000/- per month and thus not in a position to comply with the order so passed. The Family Court has laid extra emphasis on the fact that he is paying car loan installments of Rs.11,858/- per month, which amount is infact being paid by his parents and not by the appellant/husband herein.

(3.) Learned counsel also submits that although the Family Court has observed that no document has been placed on record by the appellant in support of his submission that the respondent is working, the appellant has infact placed copies obtained from the office of the ESIC and has placed a screen shot of the hotmail account of the father of the respondent which shows that the respondent is working in a firm, namely, MCB Electro Control (Sigma Brand) and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that on account of the respondent having concealed vital information pertaining to her employment, on this ground alone the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should have been dismissed.