The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a party does not truthfully disclose its income, an element of conjecture and guesswork has to inevitably enter the decision-making process.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2007 disposing of an application filed by the wife claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Rs. 10,000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to his wife.

2. The wife is admittedly working as a stenographer in the District Courts and is drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs. 24,516/- as of November 2006. Deductions per month are Rs. 5,185/-. In other words the wife has a take home income of about Rs. 19,000/-.

3. Two children, a son and a daughter were born to the parties. The son was born on 17.2.1988. The daughter was born on 22.6.1994. Technically, the son being major, petitioner is entitled to urge that he is not responsible to pay any money for the upkeep of the son.

4. But I note that the son is still a student and his mother is spending money for his upkeep.

5. I would be expanding on this a little later.

6. With respect to the income of the husband, the Matrimonial Judge has recorded that the petitioner is not truthfully disclosing his income. I note that the petitioner took a stand that his gross annual income does not exceed Rs. 1.2 lacs. Disbelieving the said version of the petitioner, learned Tribunal has noted as under:-

In the year 1988-89, the defendant was able to earn commission for his LIC agency to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- which went up to about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the next year and it kept on increasing year after year. In the year 1990, the defendant has loaned Rs. 30,000/- to R.L.Dewan and managed to invest Rs. 30,000/- in the NSC. The documents indicate that the investments and savings kept on increasing and even he has been generously loaning money to the other persons and even gifted Rs. 20,000/- to one Mr. S.K. Gandhi. A gift to Naresh Arora to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was given and even a plot was also purchased in the year 1993 in Sainik Vihar so on and so forth. Against the backdrop of the facts and circumstances, the defendant is claiming that he is earning much less than the plaintiff whereas he has cash in hand as on 31.3.2004 to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- and odd Rupees, which kept on increasing year after year, so is the case with the bank accounts of the defendant, but when it comes to provide for his wife and children, the defendant finds it a bit cumbersome and financial constrains block his way.

7. At the hearing held on 14.2.2008 it was urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as an agent with Life Insurance Corporation and that his income was by way of commission received from LIC. With reference to the profit and loss account and income tax returns for the period ending 31.3.2003, 31.3.2004 and 31.3.2005 it was urged that the annual income from professional earnings as reflected therein as also reflected in the income tax returns was around Rs. 1.2 lacs per annum. Counsel thus urged that the Matrimonial Judge could not have returned a presumptive finding of income. Second contention urged was that the wife had occupied the matrimonial house and was not paying any rent. On the contrary, the husband was forced to shift out and take a premises on rent. It was urged that said aspect has been ignored by the Matrimonial Judge. Lastly, it was urged that the income of the wife at Rs. 20,000/- per month has been ignored by the Matrimonial Judge.

8. In the decision reported as AIR1997SC3397 Jasbir Kaur v. D.J. Dehradun in para 7 it was observed by their Lordships in the Supreme Court as under:

It does appear to us from the affidavit of the husband that it conceals more than what it tells of his income and other assets. Attempt has been made to conceal his true income and that leads us to draw an adverse inference against the husband about his income that it is much more than what is being disclosed to us. The claim of the husband that from an income of Rs. 4,750/- per month which is getting from Mukul International Pvt. Ltd. he has to mai