JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21st May, 1999, vide which the learned judge allowed the application for grant to maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for the wife, Rs. 300/- per month for the child and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-.
2. The grievance of the wife primarily is that keeping in view the income and financial status of the husband-respondent, the amount of interim maintenance fixed is wholly inadequate. The wife had filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. She contended that she was married to Shri Om Parkash according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. From this marriage, a minor child was born. However, because of cruelty inflicted upon her by the respondent, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and was staying with her parents. She claims to have no other sources of income and is totally dependent upon her parents even in bringing up her minor child. Despite this, she wanted to settle her matrimonial home and, as such, filed the above petition, which is being contested by the respondent-husband.
3. The wife filed an application for grant of interim maintenance before the learned Additional District Judge. Gurgaon, which again was contested by the respondents but was allowed, as afore-noticed, by order dated 21st May, 1999, now impugned in (his revision.
4. It is contended by the wife that the respondent-husband is carrying on the business of Chemist Shop and other ancillary items and is earning at least Rs. 30,000/- per month. He is staying in his own house.
5. The husband denied the averments made in the application. According to him, he never inflicted any cruelties upon the wife and she has no reason whatsoever to leave (live?) away from the petitioner. He pleads the case of desertion and thus dismissal of the application. He admits that he is running Chemist shop and according to him, his income is not more than Rs. 4,000/-, which is hardly sufficient to meet his own demands. The wife is stated to be educated lady and is B.Ed, and is earning Rs. 4,000/- per month from tuition work.
6. In this present case, marriage is admitted. Birth of child is admitted. It has also not been disputed by the husband that he is running Chemist Shop. The petitioner has placed on record photographs of the shop which shows the name of the shop as “Paryag Medical Store”. The photographs show that two shops have been converted into one big shop and is open from three sides. The photographs itself show that the peti-
tioner is not only dealing with the medicines but as well as in other items. The assessment order passed by the assessing authority, Faridabad shows gross turn (over) of Rs. 2,65,085/-, Once the husband admits that he is carrying on the business, it was his obligation to place his income tax returns on record to show the court income which he was receiving from the said business. The husband himself placed on record the order of assessment of the sale tax but did not bring on record the income tax returns. Every party to the proceedings before the court is under obligation to place on record documents in his power and possession which are likely to throw light on the truth of the case and would help the court in determining the matter in issue. The respondent admits his income to be Rs. 5,000/- per month, while according to w|fe he has income more than 30,000/- rupees per month. It is difficult to believe the version of the wife but equally unbelievable the admission of the husband. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner’s income is more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. Even if the income tax returns show lesser income, it is a matter of common knowledge that true income is hardly disclosed before the Income Tax Authorities. But I have already noticed that no such return has been placed on record of this court.
7. There is social and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and child and not to leave them at the mercy of her parents. Admittedly the wife is a qualified lady and even if she is making an attempt to earn some money to bring up her child in a better way, this would not be a factor which would disentille her from claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her child from the husband because she is entitled to live the same life in terms of social and financial status which she would have enjoyed if she continued to live with her husband. Whether she was forced to leave the matrimonial home because of the cruelty of the husband or was it her act of desertion is a matter which has to be decided by the court at the time of final decision of the main petition.
8. In view of the circumstances afore-stated, this revision is accepted, the order dated 21st May, 1999 is modified to the extent that the wife would be entitled to get Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance pendente life for herself as well for the child. She would be entitled to litigation expenses, which are assessed at Rs. 5000/-.
9. Revision allowed.