Intentionally suppressing employment and income during maintenance proceedings justifies denial of maintenance.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner – husband seeking to set aside the order dated 30.3.2023 passed by the 1^st Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No.188/2019 on the application filed under Section 125 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent - wife from the date of petition alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2. It is the case of petitioner - husband that respondent - wife filed a petition under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the main petition, an application came to be filed seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. This application was seriously contested by the petitioner - husband. On hearing learned counsels for the parties and on consideration of the assets and liabilities statements filed by both the parties, learned Judge of the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

3. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the order passed by the Family Court is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to the material placed on record and based on false affidavit and incorrect submission of facts by the respondent and therefore, the order requires to be set aside. It is further contended that the petitioner is working in BESCOM on the basis of the compassionate appointment and earning a salary of Rs.47,240/- per month and his monthly expenses is to an extent of Rs.25,149/-. Apart from salary income, he has no other source of income and he has stated all these aspects in his assets and liabilities filed by way of affidavit.

3.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that though the respondent – wife has filed assets and liabilities initially by way of an affidavit, she has withdrawn the same as it was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh -vs- Neha and another, (2021)2 SCC 324 . The assets and liabilities were initially filed by the respondent on 24.5.2022 and later, it was filed for the 2^nd time on 8.11.2022. In both the affidavits filed by the respondent - wife, it is clearly stated that she does not have any source of income and against details of income, she has stated that she is ‘housewife - unemployed’ and declared her monthly income as ‘nil’. Therefore, respondent has totally denied any source of income or any employment on her side. It is also stated that she is having several liabilities due to the loans she availed, which is evident from the affidavit filed by her. In the column of income of the other spouse – husband, it is stated that petitioner is working in BESCOM earning salary of Rs.46,000/-, alongwith rent of two independent houses amounting to Rs.20,000/-.

3.2 It is further contention of learned counsel that based on the assets and liabilities, learned Judge of the Family Court has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent. In the objections statement and also during the course of arguments before the Family Court, the petitioner has taken a clear stand that the respondent - wife is employed and earning and this is denied by the respondent – wife. In the application and during the course of arguments and so also in her cross-examination, respondent denied that she was working as a Guest Teacher and earning income. Learned counsel for the petition