* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: August 29, 2016 % Judgment Delivered on: September 05, 2016 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143/2014 RUPALI GUPTA ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Ankur Mahindro, Advocate versus RAJAT GUPTA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Anirudh K.Mudgal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated September 06, 2014 whereby learned Judge Family Court awarded a sum of ₹22,900/- per month towards maintenance to the two children of the parties but declined to award interim maintenance to her as she is a qualified Chartered Accountant having sufficient means to maintain herself.

2. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on July 16, 2005 at Delhi in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. They are having two children. Elder one is a son born on March 04, 2006 and younger one is a daughter born on March 12, 2008. They were living together till August 23, 2013. The appellant/wife is a qualified Chartered Accountant whereas the respondent/husband is an Electrical Engineer but running his own business. There are rival claims about the financial status and respective earnings of the parties.

3. The respondent/husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. In the divorce petition, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance for a sum of ₹3,00,000/- per month for herself and the two children and ₹1,10,000/-

towards litigation expenses.

5. The impugned order has been challenged by the appellant/wife mainly on the ground that her income prior to separation has been wrongly taken into account and the view taken about her monthly income to be not less than ₹40,000/- in contrast to her claim of earning ₹7,000/- per month is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Another ground of challenge is that income of her husband which is not less than ₹8,00,000/- per month has wrongly been assessed as ₹1,10,000/- per month.

6. When the appeal was reserved for judgement, a written note has been filed by the appellant/wife auditing the income of the respondent/husband and enclosing the receipt of the payment of tuition fees and transport charges in respect of the two children. She has also mentioned her reasonable wants from her husband which includes house rent, household expenses, miscellaneous expenses as well tuition fees and transport charges but without disclosing her own assets and income truthfully.

7. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes a provision for award of interim maintenance to a spouse who has no independent income sufficient to support her and fight the legal battle. In the decision reported as AIR 2003 Mad 212 Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs. M.Devaki High Court of Madras while construing the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and relying on its earlier decision reported as (2002) 2 M.L.J. 760 Kumaresan Vs.Aswathi held that for grant of maintenance pendent lite, the party should not have sufficient independent income for her/his support.

8. While denying maintenance to the appellant/wife, learned Judge Family Court refused to believe her claim that she was getting only ₹7,000/- per month despite the fact that she had been practicing as Chartered Accountant since the year 2003 earlier with M/s S.N.Verma & Company, after her marriage with her father-in-law who himself is a Chartered Accountant and then again with M/s S.N.Verma & Company. Her claim that she has no sufficient means to support herself and children had been dealt with by the learned Judge Family Court noting that the parties had been indulging in jugglery of accounts making the things complex.

9. The relevant discussion in para No.33 of the impugned order records the reason for not accepting the claim of the appellant/wife to seek maintenance from her husband and extracted hereunder:-

“