1.RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. The petitioner (husband) has challenged the order of interim maintenance passed by the Trial Court, confirmed in appeal. The impugned interim order dated 04.01.2020 was passed by the Magistrate during pendency of application filed by respondent (wife) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘D.V. Act’). The order has been challenged on the ground that both Courts below failed to consider the income of the petitioner while fixing the interim maintenance. It is argued that the petitioner is working as Commission Agent earning Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month, however both the Courts below misread the material and granted interim maintenance at excessive rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

4. The facts in brief are that, the respondent (wife) got married with petitioner (husband) on 08.12.2013. She was subjected to several acts of harassment which falls within the term ‘Domestic Violence’ as defined under Section 3 of the D. V. Act. The petitioner allegedly neglected and refused to maintain her. She claimed multiple reliefs under the D. V. Act including monetary relief as provided under Section 20 of the D. V. Act. The Trial Court prima facie found that the respondent is an aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence and thus, awarded interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. The appeal against said interim order is dismissed.

5. Both learned counsels have restricted their submission to the extent of quantum of maintenance, hence I need not go to the other factual aspects. It is the respondent’s claim in the application under the D. V. Act that the petitioner husband was earlier serving as a Lecturer in the Engineering College drawing salary to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month. However, for better prospect, he left salaried job and started to indulge into property dealing under the name and caption of OSHIN Realtors India Private Ltd. Company, from which he earns Rs. 3,00,000/- to 4,00,000/- per month. Besides that petitioner owns 30 acres of ancestral agricultural land having sufficient yield. On the other hand, respondent wife does not have source of income and thus, for her essential needs and to meet medical expenses, she claimed interim maintenance. The petitioner has denied the alleged income by stating that by resigning job of lectureship, he started to work as Commission Agent in the company from which he hardly earns Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He denied to have agricultural land in his name, but stated that there is few land standing in the name of joint family from which he does not get income.

6. At the outset, it is to be born in mind that this petition has come against interim order. The parties have yet to lead evidence in support of rival claims. Naturally, on the basis of prima facie material, the interim maintenance has to be fixed. The petitioner has not denied that he was serving as a Lecturer in the Engineering College. Pertinent to note that petitioner has not specifically denied that he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month towards salary. The Trial Court expressed that since petitioner has voluntarily left a salaried job having good income, that by itself indicates that he gets lucrative income from his property dealing business. The petitioner has produced copies of two Income Tax Returns, however, as per respondent’s case, the petitioner has suppressed his business income to parry payment of taxes. Logically, the petitioner must have been earning much more as he has left a lucrative salaried job fr