JUDGMENT

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The appellant/husband has challenged the Order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court-01, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Family Court’) in HMA 587/2022, titled Sachin Kumar Daksh v. Mamta Gola & Anr., whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HMA’), seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child, was disposed of with the following direction:

“ 18. Keeping in view of above facts and circumstances and income and liability of the parties, this application filed by respondent No.1 is allowed. Respondent No.1 is awarded pendente lite maintenance for herself @ Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of filing of this application till the date of this order & @ Rs. 10,000/- from the date of this order till the disposal of divorce petition and for minor daughter @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of application till the disposal of divorce petition.”

2. The appellant/husband and respondent no. l/wife were married on 11.12.2019 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, on account of incompatibility and differences in their married life, they could not pull on together, and the appellant/husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955. The appellant also levelled allegations of an adulterous relationship on the part of the respondent no.1 with two other individuals after the solemnization of the marriage. A female child was born from the wedlock of the parties, who is currently in the care and custody of respondent no.1. The parties have been residing separately since 10.03.2021. In the aforesaid divorce petition, the respondent no. 1 had filed an application under Section 24 of the HMA, which was disposed of vide the Impugned Order.

3. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent no.1 was working as a Finance Executive at the Miric Biotech, Barakhamba Road, Delhi, in addition to being a registered Insurance Planner with Tata AIA, a Health Insurance Planner at HDFC ERGO and APOLLO MUNICH Insurance companies. It is alleged that she did not disclose her true income before the learned Family Court. It is further stated that respondent no.1 is well educated, holding B.Tech. and MBA degrees. She allegedly did not disclose details of her PNB Bank accounts, including a Fixed Deposit account, and failed to submit her Income Tax Returns for the past three years. On account of these alleged concealment, the appellant/husband had also filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondent no.1, which is stated to be pending adjudication. An application for serving interrogatories is also pending adjudication before the learned Family Court, to which no reply has been filed by the respondent no.1. However, later, as a part of her reply to the interrogatories, the respondent No.1 filed bank statements of her PNB and SBI accounts, along with Income-Tax Returns for the year 2016 to 2021, which allegedly reflect that she was earning approximately Rs.3 lakhs per annum before marriage and continued to earn significantly even after filing the maintenance petition.

4. It is further contended that the respondent no.1 deliberately diverted her income through cash or other modes to show a reduced income, which is evident from her earnings before her marriage. By underreporting her income, she is alleged to have committed fraud upon the Court. It is submitted that she falsely claimed in her maintenance petition that she had not been earning for the last 2 years, that is, since April 2021.

5. It is also contended that the learned Family Court erred in inferring that the respondent no.1 was not employed or earning from ACS Academy or Vikram Consultancy, during the year 2022. It is stated that the appellant has proof to confirm that the respondent no.1 is working as a teac