Santosh v. Mohinder

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 115/2014 SANTOSH ..... Appellant Represented by:

Mr.A.K.Pandey, Advocate with Mr.Sunil Kumar & Mr.Hari Rattan, Advocates versus MOHINDER ..... Respondent Represented by:

None

CORAM:

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

O R D E R

% 08.08.2016 1.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we find no infirmity in the impugned order denying any maintenance to the appellant for the reason the testimony of CW-1, CW-2 & CW-3 evince that the appellant was gainfully employed as a teacher with Mid Field School, Rawta More, New Delhi and she voluntarily abandoned the same. 2.

As regards the husband, claim of the appellant that he was a Branch Manager with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited drawing salary in sum of ₹50,000/- has been disproved through the documents produced by the respondent establishing that he was a Agency Manager receiving salary in sum of ₹22891/- per month.

Working with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, the MAT.APP.(F.C.) 115/2014

respondent had to travel a lot to procure business. He had taken a car on hire purchase for which he was paying EMIs.

3.

The learned Trial Judge has correctly opined that the appellant had concealed true facts about her personal employment and her earnings. 4.

The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

AUGUST 08, 2016 'st'

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 115/2014