JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Vide impugned order, the learned Judge allowed an application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), while granting maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the impugned order suffers from an error of jurisdiction, as it is based on misreading of the application under Section 24 of the Act and reply filed thereto. He further contended that there was no material before the Court to determine any income of the petitioner and as such no amount of maintenance, much less amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month, could be fixed.
3. At the outset, it must be noticed that the factum of marriage and relationship between the parties that of husband and wife is not disputed. The husband has an obligation to maintain his wife. This obligation is sought to be void on the ground that the wife was earning sufficiently by doing stitching and embroidery work, though no material in that regard has been placed on record except a bald allegation.
4. Be as that it may, attempt of wife to make her two ends meet and not to be a burden on her parents and relatives, cannot be taken to be an adverse consequence against her, in denying absolutely the maintenance to her. However, it may be relevant factor for determining the quantum of maintenance to be fixed by the Court.
5. It is a settled principle of law that a wife is entitled to enjoy somewhat similar status and benefits and standard of life which she would have enjoyed, if she had continued to live with her husband unless she is barred from claiming maintenance pendente lite or otherwise in law by her own act and conduct.
6. The law places an obligation upon the parties appearing before the Court to state true and correct facts before the Court. The petition under Section 24 of the Act normally is not put to trial. Thus, it is expected that each party would disclose correct facts in relation to the matter in issue before the Court for its appropriate decision and determination. Withholding of facts or vague replies cannot come to the aid to one party in denying the relief to the other.
7. In the application, it was averred that the husband was having a shop, house and was carrying the business of running a cycle stand in Gurgaon and he was possessing movable and immovable properties, details of which were given in the application and has an income of not less than Rs. 8,000/- per month. To these specific averments, the following reply was submitted by the non-applicant, which reads as under:-
“It is also denied that he is running a cycle stand in front of his shop, as alleged. It is also denied that the petitioner is the sole owner of a big shop on the main Railway road, as alleged. It is also denied that the petitioner is absolute owner of the House No. 1352, Arjun Nagar, Gurgaon, as alleged. It is also denied that the house is double storeyed, as alleged. It is also denied that the cost of the said house is not below then Rs. seven lacs as alleged. It is also denied that he also owns a shop which was purchased four years ago, as alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner is a poor man and used to do cycle punctured work only and no other work and he has no movable and immovable properties in his name and he hardly earns Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month from the said work.”
(Emphasis applied by the Court).
8. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court in case of Gurvinder Singh v. Harjit Kaur and Anr., (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 422 : Civil Revision No. 4075 of 1997 decided on 26.3.1998, wherein the Court held as under:-
“……It is expected from every litigant irrespective of the fact whether he is seeking relief from the Court or not that he would state true and correct facts. There is not only implied but specific obligation upon every party who approaches the Court to verify the facts true to the knowledge and belief of the party specially in the cases of present kind where the Court has to take prima facie view keeping in mind the urgency of the matter regarding grant or refusal of maintenance. Primarily the onus has to be discharged by respective parties in support of the averments made in the application or reply as the case may be. Concept of heavy burden of proof would be applicable during the trial where the parties have the liberty to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The Court would be well within its jurisdiction to draw adverse inference against a party who actually or attempt to withhold the best evidence and true facts from the Court with intention to frustrate the claim of others at this preliminary stage of proceedings……”
9. From the above narrated facts, if is clear that the husband has definitely attempted to withhold correct facts from the Court. He cleverly states that he is not the sole proprietor of the business or sole owner of the house. He also states that he used to do cycle work but says nothing about the present. The vague averments in fact amount to an implied admission on the part of the husband, who apparently has interest and rights in the properties mentioned but the nature of the interest may not have been definitely established on record. This clever attempt on the part of the husband was rightly frustrated by the learned trial Court in coming to a reasonable conclusion that the income had to be taken atleast at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month and may not be at Rs. 8,000/-per month, as averred by the wife.
10. For the reasons aforestated, I find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, much less an error apparent on the face of the record.
11. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.