The court exercised judicial discretion in considering the respondent's initial concealment of facts, subsequent disclosure, and financial dependence, emphasizing the entitlement of a spouse to a similar lifestyle as in the matrimonial home. The court also highlighted the need to avoid harshness in dismissing maintenance applications based solely on concealment, especially when financial dependence is evident.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.07.2009, whereby the District Judge has granted monthly maintenance to the respondent no.1, wife @ Rs.5,500/-per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. As per the petition at the time of marriage the petitioner was a widower and respondent no.1 was a divorcee.

2. Mr. Chadha, counsel for the petitioner submits the marriage between the parties was solemnized in a simple manner and no articles of dowry were given or taken. After marriage parties resided at Faridabad in a house which belongs to M/s.Bhagwan Dass Time Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the house was given to the petitioner by the company, being the director of the company. At the instance of respondent no.1, parties shifted to Sainik Farms in the year 2000. Parties did not have the cordial relations since June, 2002. Respondent no.1 wanted the house at Sainik Farms to be transferred in her name and since the petitioner did not exceed to her request, she threatened him that she would create such a situation that petitioner would be forced to transfer the house in her name. The relationship between the parties deteriorated to the extent that respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge, with the prayer that she should not be dispossessed from the house at Sainik Farms. The respondent no.1 on 20.11.2002 in the absence of the petitioner removed all the articles of the household such as furniture, refrigerator, T.V., Paintings, Linen and all her wearing apparels and jewellery etc. and she also took away the Tata Indica Car, belonged to the company. Petitioner informed the police control room, who visited the site and verified the factum of removal of goods from the maid servant, who was working with the petitioner. Since the local police did not cooperate in the investigation of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Sections 380/403/411/34 IPC. After preliminary evidence, the matter was referred to the SHO Mehrauli for investigation. Investigations revealed that household goods were in fact removed from the Sainik Farms house with the help of respondent no.2 by respondent no.1. The goods were recovered from a flat at Gurgaon, which was in control of respondent no.2; and the car was also recovered from a friend of respondent no.1. It is further submitted that with a view to gain access to the house of the petitioner, respondent no.1 jumped the 9 ft. boundary wall on 21.11.2002 and in the process she received injuries. The respondent no.1 also filed a complaint under Sections 498-A/406/325 IPC resulting in registration of an FIR whereby the aged father and son of the petitioner were also roped in.

3. Mr. Chadha, counsel for the petitioner submits that in a criminal complaint under Sections 380/403/411/34 IPC filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 moved an application for becoming approver and he admitted having physical relation with respondent no.1 and having lived together at Shimla and Ludhiana. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts disentitled respondent no.1 for grant of maintenance.

4. The main thrust of argument of counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.1 did not approach the trial court with clean hands and has suppressed and withheld the material facts. It is contended that on this ground alone the application for maintenance is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the respondent no.1 was already employed and has sufficient earnings to maintain herself; and respondent no.1 has failed to disclose her income from AVIVA Insurance Company and thus the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting interim maintenance.

5. Counsel for t