JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Challenge in this revision is by the wife Ms. Ravinder Kaur to the order dated 27.1.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot, granting her Rs. 6,000/- per month on account of maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. She had filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that her husband Makhan Singh was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, while she has no independent source of income and claimed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month on account of maintenance for herself as well as for the minor child, who was living with her.
2. The application was contested on the ground that the husband was neither having any business nor was having the income of Rs. 5,00,000/- as alleged. He claimed to be a labourer earning Rs. 600/- per month. He further contended that one child was living with him and the order of the learned District Judge was not liable to be interfered with.
3. From the above narrated facts, marriage is admitted; birth of two children from the wedlock is admitted and it is also admitted that one child is living with the husband and the another is living with his mother. The only controversy is with regard to the income of the husband. While the wife filed the application supported by her own affidavit and also the affidavit of two other persons in support of the facts averred in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the husband opted not to file any affidavit. As such, the affidavit filed by the wife in support of her application as well as that of the affidavits of Dalip Singh and Mohinder Singh remained unrebutted by way of evidence.
4. It is a settled principle of law that a person who approaches the court has primary onus to prove the facts averred for the grant of the relief prayed for. But it is equally true that the parties have to discharge their respective onus in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Such proceedings are kind of summary proceedings and are normally never put to regular trial. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary that the parties to these proceedings must come before the Court with clean hands and must discharge their respective onus. Merely vague denial or there being no affidavit in support of the case of either of the parties, cannot give advantage to that party in the event any party withhold the best evidence which in normal course he/she ought to have in power and possession, the court would be well within its jurisdiction to draw adverse inference against that party. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Gurvinder Singh v. Harjit Kaur and Ors., (1998-3)119 P.L.R. 422 (Para 2).
” . . . . 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 . . . .”
5. In the present case, the learned court below has come to the conclusion that the income of the husband would be Rs. 1,600/- per month even if he is working as a labourer. The husband must suffer disadvantage of not filing any affidavit in support of his case and not rebutting the affidavits filed by the wife and her witnesses by way of affidavits; but still the court would not be exercising its jurisdiction in consonance with the law, if the mere averments that the husband was earning Rs. 50,000/- is accepted, as no document has been placed nor proper or cogent details have been furnished in relation to the income of the husband. The undisputed facts remain that one child is staying with the wife and they must be granted such maintenance, which could afford them at least two square meals a day. If the husband was working as a ordinary labourer he could have easily produced on record a letter from his contractor/employer that he was so employed and was getting only Rs. 60-70 per day. Balancing the equities between the parties and keeping the minimum earning of the persons like the husband in the present case, it would be safe to draw reasonable inference in relation to the income of the husband. The husband must be earning at least 3,000/- to 4,000/- rupees per month.
6. Consequently, it would be just and fair that the wife is awarded a sum of Rs. 900/- per month on account of maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application. The amount shall be paid regularly by 7th of each succeeding months. The arrears of maintenance be cleared within three months from today.
7. While accepting the present revision for the aforestated reason and to the limited extent as indicated above, order dated 27.1.998 passed by the learned District Judge stands modified to that extent. There shall be no order as to costs.