Philaur Lal vs Raj Rani

Swatanter Kumar, J.

CM No. 7642/CII/99

This application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Reply annexed to this application is permitted to be taken on record.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 70-M of 1998.

This is an application filed by the respondent-wife u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per month during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the appellant-husband and litigation expenses of Rs. 7,500/-.

Philaur Lal, appellant, was married to Ms. Raj Rani according to Hindu rites on 5.10.1989 at Rania. From this wedlock two daughters were born.

The appellant-husband preferred a petition u/s 13(1-a)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the parties before learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. The appellant-husband has alleged in that petition that after some time of the married life, he and his family members described that the respondent-wife was suffering from intermittent mental disorder and her behaviour was not proper. Various incidents were referred to, to show that the behaviour of the wife was not normal and she some time even threatened to commit suicide. The said petition was primarily based on mental agony and cruelty resulting from the wife. The wife contested this petition and denied all allegations and more particularly that she was suffering from any mental disorder.

Learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissed the petition vide his judgment dated 5.12.1996 giving rise to the present appeal.

As already noticed, during the pendency of this appeal, present application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses has been filed by the wife. It is stated in the application that the husband is running milk dairy business and is a person of sufficient means and properties. In paragraph 3 of the application, the wife has stated following facts:-

"That the appellant-husband is running a milk cream dairy with the name and style of "Bille Di Dairy" near Sukheja Petrol Pump, Rania Road, Sirsa. He is also running another milk-cream dairy in the name and style of "Jagan Nath Di Dairy" Hissar Road, Kherpur, Sirsa. He is also a whole sale merchant of Karyana goods at Gaushala Road, Sirsa. The monthly income of the appellant-husband is about 30,000/-.

Reply to the application has been filed by the appellant-husband, where the appellant has vaguely denied the allegations levelled in the application. Reply to paragraph 3 of the application reads as under:

"That in reply to para No. 3, it is submitted that appellant is not owner of any of the Dairies mentioned in this para. The appellant is in no way concerned with the alleged Dairies. The location of the alleged Dairies is also not known to the appellant. In fact, the appellant is a milk vendor and sells the milk in the city after collecting and purchasing from the villages. Father, mother and grand mother are dependent upon the appellant. The monthly income of the appellant is not more than Rs. 1,500/-."

From the above pleadings of the parties, one fact is clear that the husband is carrying on the business of selling milk etc. Whether he is selling it on purchase from other sources or is running his own dairy, as stated by the respondent-wife, is the only question of dispute. The wife, in normal course of events, having admittedly lived with the husband for some time is likely to know the real nature of the business of the husband. She would have no reason to give the name of the dairies being run by the husband along with his family member''s falsely. On the other hand, the husband has vaguely denied these averments. The husband has given no name as to from whom he buys the milks and which are his customers to whom he sells the milk. On one hand, the husband states that he has no great source of income and on the other hand, he claims that his father, mother and grand mother are depending upon him. There seems to be some inbuilt contradictions in the pleadings of the husband.

It is expected from the party, who comes to the Court, to state true and correct facts and to produce on record the documentary evidence which such party, in normal course of his business, is likely to possess. There is a definite intention on the part of the husband to withhold the correct information within his knowledge from the Court. This must lead to some adverse inference being drawn against the husband. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Gurvinder Singh Vs. Harjit Kaur and Another, : Civil Revision No. 4075 of 1997 decided on 26.3.1998, where the Court has held as under:-

".....It is expected from every litigant irrespective of the fact whether he is seeking relief from the Court or not that he would state true and correct facts. There is not only implied but specific obligation upon every party who approaches the Court to verify the facts true to the knowledge and belief of the party specially in the cases of present kind where the Court has to take prima facie view keeping in mind the urgency of the matter regarding grant or refusal of maintenance. Primarily the onus has to be discharged by respective parties in support of the averments made in the application or reply as the case may be. Concept of heavy burden of proof would be applicable during the trial where the parties have the liberty to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The court would be well within its jurisdiction to draw adverse inference against a party who actually or attempt to withhold the best evidence and true facts from the Court with intention to frustrate the claim of others at this preliminary stage of proceedings....."

For the aforestated reasons, I would not be inclined to believe the version put forward by the husband that he is earning only Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is clear that he is having more income and in any case not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The factum of trading in milk being not in issue, it is difficult to believe that he is not earning even what a normal labourer earns. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the wife shall be entitled to get Rs. 900/- per month as maintenance pendent lite during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the husband and shall also be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as litigation expenses. The amount of maintenance shall be payable from the date of order.

With the above directions, this application stands disposed of.