The main legal point established is the requirement for litigants to make a full and candid disclosure of all relevant and material facts, as failure to do so can impact the court's jurisdiction and decisions.

JUDGMENT

Avinash G. Gharote, J. - Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsels agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties.

4. The petition challenges the order dated 28.07.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Amravati, under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be refereed as the 'D.V. Act'), whereby the applicant No. 1/husband, has been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month to the minor son. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Court by judgment dated 30.04.2019 by dismissing the appeal.

5. Mr. Dhore, learned counsel for the applicants submits, that the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, is an outcome of a result of an intentional suppression practiced by the non-applicant/wife, inasmuch as, though on 20.07.2013 when the complaint under the D.V. Act came to be filed, the non-applicant/wife was permanently residing at Mumbai and was employed with the R.A. Poddar Medical College, Mumbai with effect from 13.05.2013 and was earning sumptuously, no disclosure of this was made by her in the complaint nor was her salary certificate indicating the amount of salary which was drawn by her, placed on record. He submits, that only for the purpose of creating jurisdiction with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, the residence of the non-applicant/wife, on 20.07.2013, has been shown at Amravati, whereas, since May 2013 and even prior thereto the non-applicant/wife was residing at Mumbai. He further submits, that after the marriage on 09.07.2011, the non-applicant/wife, had shifted to Mumbai, to reside at the matrimonial home, where the applicant No. 1/husband was residing there till 05.06.2013, on which date, a report was lodged by her with Dadar Police Station against the applicants whereupon she had left the matrimonial house and had come to Amravati. He further submits, that perhaps after instructing her counsel who drafted the compliant at Amravati, she had gone back again to Mumbai to join her services to R.A. Poddar Medical College, Mumbai, where she was employed upon selection by the M.P.S.C., and therefore, as she was a permanent resident of Mumbai, the complaint at her behest filed at Amravati was not maintainable.

6. He further submits, that it was the duty of the non-applicant/wife to have made a full and candid disclosure, regarding her employment and the amount which she was receiving as salary, which could have been taken into consideration by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, while passing the impugned order granting interim maintenance. He submits, that though a vague statement was made in para 17, that the non-applicant/wife was due to resume her services at Mumbai shortly there was no clear cut disclosure regarding the nature of her services and the emoluments which she was getting on account of such services. He submits, that though the applicants, in their written statement, had specifically stated, that the non-applicant/wife, at the time of filing of the application was residing at Mumbai and was a working as Assistant Professor in R.A. Poddar Medical College, Mumbai, on account of medical leave availed by her during the period 05.06.2013 to 27.08.2013, the complaint came to be filed, in spite of which position, there was no candid disclosure, as to the nature of her services or the emoluments which she was getting at Mumbai. He submits, that though this submission was noted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati in para 12 of the impugned order, the same was not considered on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence on record about her current working status and