Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hridesh Tiwari vs Smt. Sarita Tiwari on 23 September, 2019
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
FA.93.2017
[Hridesh Tiwari Vs. Smt. Sarita Tiwari]
1
Gwalior, Dated:-23/09/2019
Shri Prasun Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
IA.2374/2019 is taken up for consideration. By said application, respondent seeks maintenance pendente lite.
It is urged that during pendency of divorce petition before the trial court, the respondent was being paid Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance which has since been stopped with the final decision in the divorce suit, which has been dismissed by impugned order. It is urged that the appellant is earning handsome salary over Rs.One Lac per month (14 Lacs per annum). However, no material documents have been commended at to establish the contention. Be that as it may. The applicant on these contentions seeks maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The appellant denied the contention raised in the application. It is urged that the applicant is employed with Finacle Universal Banking Solution from Infosys and is earning Rs.22,471/- per month. It is also contended that even in respect of order under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C.") an amount THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH FA.93.2017 [Hridesh Tiwari Vs. Smt. Sarita Tiwari] 2 of Rs.20,000/- has been deposited with the trial court. It is urged that the applicant has concealed these facts. It is contended that the applicant since has sufficient means to earn her livelihood and live with dignity, she is not entitled for the interim maintenance as claimed.
Considered rival contentions.
The applicant in her application, for the reason best known to her, has concealed the fact that she is in employment and is regularly earning her salary. She has concealed the fact about getting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since the applicant is getting decent salary and is living a dignified life, we are not inclined to grant her interim maintenance as claimed.
Consequently, IA.2374/2019 fails and is dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
pd
PAWAN
DHARKAR
2019.09.2
6 17:06:25
+05'30'