Additional District Judge Gurnam Singh dismissed the woman’s application seeking maintenance saying the woman had concealed the fact that she was employed and her salary was more than that of the petitioner.
“She absolutely concealed this fact in the application as well as supporting affidavit,” he said in his four-page order.
In her application filed through her advocate, Jeewan Mala prayed to direct her husband Dharmendra Joshi to pay Rs 20,000 per month as ad interim maintenance to her for meeting her and their two sons’ expenses.
She stated the expenses of each of the children were Rs 1,50,000 per annum and she had no sufficient independent income to meet out the expenses.
Making an appeal for dismissal of Mala’s application, Joshi’s counsel stated that the petitioner had filed it without giving details about her employment and salary.
Joshi’s counsel said Mala was working as a Maths teacher for last 20 years and is getting more salary than her husband.
She also owns a house, portion of which was rented out. To the contrary, the petitioner was employed on contractual basis and was getting consolidated salary, he added.
At this, the court directed both the parties to produce their salary certificates.
The salary certificate of Joshi revealed that he was getting salary of Rs 21,732, whereas Mala was getting salary of Rs 35,842.
To this, Mala’s counsel submitted that with the aforesaid salary she was not able to meet out her necessities and the school expenses of both the children, which were quite high.
The lawyer also said that Mala was suffering from cancer and was undergoing treatment.
Joshi’s counsel counter-argued that his salary was quite less than Mala’s salary and the children were sent to a highly expensive school without his knowledge and consent, for which he could not be made liable.