Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court dated 13th August 2009, present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Mr.Sameer Chandra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that petitioner is a commission agent and is earning about Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is on much higher side as it is beyond the earning capacity of the petitioner.

5. It is not disputed that he owns a Santro Car and a Pulsar Motor Cycle. Petitioner has tried to state that this Car belonged to his father, which he inherited after his death. It is submitted that now the Car stands transferred in the name of his mother. When questioned, it was admitted that petitioner transferred the Car in the name of his mother after impugned order was passed against him. This conduct of the petitioner clearly indicates that he has no intention to pay maintenance to the respondent. He also owns a Pulsar Motor Cycle. Admittedly, loan raised by the petitioner for purchase of the Motor Cycle has been cleared off. Besides, petitioner has a mobile phone. Petitioner does not have any liability to maintain his mother as she owns a house and has sufficient rental income from the same. Petitioner has tried to emphasize that his TDS Form for the period 21st July, 2007 to 31st March, 2008 indicate that his annual income was Rs.65,000/-