The responsibility of the husband to maintain the wife, regardless of the wife's employment status, as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the petitioner assails order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrigonda awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in H. M. P. No. 125 of 2018.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 18th December, 2016. The respondent-wife has filed petition for divorce. In that petition both wife and husband filed their respective applications claiming interim maintenance against each others. Both raised a claim that they are unemployed, whereas their counterpart is employed and earning salary and income. The Trial Court after considering entire material on record has awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife and has not awarded any interim maintenance to the husband.

4. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Bhosale, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner-husband proved before the Trial Court that the respondent-wife is employed. He relies upon salary certificate issued by Mphasis Limited, Pune for the month of February 2020 showing gross salary of Rs. 17,574/- and net salary of Rs. 16,372/-. He also places reliance on the statement issued by that company showing deposit of that amount in the bank account of the respondent-wife. Mr. Bhosale would further submit that contrary to the employment of the respondent-wife, she has filed false affidavit stating that she is unemployed and has made several other false statements in her affidavit of assets, income and expenditure.

5. Mr. Bhosale would further submit that the petitioner-husband is unemployed and that the respondent-wife did not produce any other material before the Trial Court to demonstrate that the petitioner-husband is earning any salary. He would submit that in the light of the evidence of income to the respondent-wife and complete lack of evidence of any income by the husband, the Trial Court ought to have rejected application of the respondent-wife for interim maintenance.

6. Mr. Bhosale would further submit that the respondent-wife has made false declaration of educational qualification as B. A. (Arts) and referring to the wedding invitation card, he would submit that the respondent-wife has stated therein that she is Software Engineer. Mr. Bhosale would rely upon following judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court.

I. Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur reported in (2010) 15 SCC 372.

II. Amarjit Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh and another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 228.

III. Mrs. Shlokha N. Chhabria Vs. Mr. Narendra A. Chhabria reported in 2019(7) All MR 100

7. Per contra, Ms. Narwade, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife opposes the petition and supports the order passed by the Trial Court. She would submit that mere production of salary certificate in respect of one month is not conclusive proof of wife’s employment. She submits that currently the respondent-wife is not employed anywhere. She would further submit that merely on the basis of qualification possessed by the respondent-wife interim maintenance cannot be denied to her. She would further submit that the petitioner-husband is not only employed in the Software company and earning monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-. He is also doing dairy business from which he earns monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. She would further submit that the petitioner has landed property capable of earning income. Mrs. Narwade further submits that even though order of interim maintenance is passed by the Trial Court on 18.06.2020, no amount, except amount of Rs. 15,000/-, has been paid by the petitioner-husband of interim maintenance as directed by the Trial Court. In support of her contention Mrs. Narwade would rely upon judgment of the Supreme Court in a case of Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain reported in (2017) 15 SCC 801 and