The court upheld maintenance based on the disclosed income and the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim for higher maintenance.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. A fair amount of cacophony has been created by the appellant in an appeal spanning 46 pages. The result is all and sundry directions issued from time to time in the appeal.

2. Vide impugned order dated October 28, 2013 the learned Judge, Family Court has decided the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by granting her maintenance in sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. The order notes that the appellant is maintaining an infant daughter born to the parties during the subsistence of the wedlock.

3. Salary of the respondent has been accepted to be Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month.

4. Case pleaded by the appellant in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was that the respondent was working as a Regional Manager with M/s Horizons Lamkraft Pvt. Ltd., D-4, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, at a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). She claimed maintenance in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month for self and her minor daughter.

5. The respondent denied the assertion and claimed to be an employee of M/s Rajkamal Plywood India Pvt. Ltd., 87/8/1, Gali No.9, Nangloi Mundka, New Delhi as a Sales Executive earning Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month.

6. In support of his plea, the respondent produced the salary slips issued by his employer.

7. Both parties filed affidavits disclosing their assets. The appellant disclosed ‘Nil’ assets and ‘Nil’ income. The respondent disclosed only one asset : a motorcycle bearing registration No.DL4SA-8323. He disclosed his salary to be Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month. He enclosed the salary certificate from the employer. He disclosed his PAN card No.ARCPK5689C.

8. The appellant could not establish her assertion that the respondent was employed with M/s Horizons Lamkraft Pvt. Ltd.; much less earning Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month.

9. Under the circumstances the learned Judge, Family Court treated respondent’s income at Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month and awarded maintenance to the appellant in sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month for herself and for her minor daughter.

10. Order dated January 29, 2016 passed by the erstwhile Division Bench which was seized of the matter records that photocopy of the PAN card filed by the respondent shows his age to be 15/02/1982. The numeral ‘8’ is a clear overwriting. This resulted in following directions being issued:-

(i) A direction is issued to the Income Tax Authorities, ITO, New Delhi to verify the correctness of this PAN Card placed at page 73 of the paper book and to place a report in this regard.

(ii) The authorities shall also furnish a report to this court of the last four income tax returns filed by Mr. Ravish Kashyap, respondent herein.

(iii) A direction is also issued to M/s Rajkamal Plywood Indi Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.87/8/1, Gali No.9, Nangloi Mundka, New Delhi-110041 and M/s Horizons Lamkart Pvt. Ltd., D-4, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 to cause to be produced before this court the applications for employment of the respondent as well as a statement of his salary including all emoluments thereon as well as deductions effected thereon for the last six years since 2010.

11. Thereafter the parties were referred to mediation. The mediation has failed.

12. There is no response from M/s Rajkamal Plywood India Pvt. Ltd. as also from M/s Horizons Lamkraft Pvt. Ltd. As regards the income tax authorities, Sh. Ashish Jain, Advocate appeared and informed that PAN card bearing No.ARCPK5689C has been issued in the name of the respondent with date of birth February 15, 1972. The respondent explained that when he received the PAN card he found that his date of birth was wrongly recorded and thus he made a correction by hand. Born in the year 1982 he corrected the year 1972 to make it 1982.

13. This is an inn