S. B. WAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dt. 15-1-1985, in HMA 455/81. In the divorce petition filed by the respondent Mahavir Prasad Jain, petitioner Smt. Renu Jain has filed an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She had claimed Rs. 3000. 00 towards pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 5. 000. 00 as litigation expenses. She had claimed an additional sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 during pregnancy and Rs. 500. 00 for meeting the delivery expenses. The application was filed in March 1982 and after prolonged evidence and hearing the order was passed almost three years later. By that time the child was already two years old. The learned trial Judge had awarded pendente lite maintenance at Rs. 750. 00 per month w. e. f. 11-3-1982 and directed that the arrears of maintenance should be paid in four equal instalments. He also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 towards litigation expenses. The wife Renu Jain filed this civil revision complaining that the amount of Rs. 750. 00 as pendente lite maintenance was too inadequate for herself and the child. She has claimed that the income of the husband from the various businesses and properties must be around Rs. 15,000. 00 per month and she herself and the child are entitled to maintenance according to the financial status of the husband and his family. The husband did not pay the instalments as directed by the trial Court punctually and also repeatedly failed to make the payments of monthly instalments. He in fact filed a civil revision against the impugned order for reduction of the maintenance amount. The civil revision was not admitted by me. ( 2 ) ONE of the grounds raised by the wife in the present petition is that the husband should not be heard because of the repeated defaults in the payment of interim maintenance amount. Counsel for the wife has relied upon two decisions, 1975 Hindu Law Reports, Page 15 and 1977 Hindu Law Reports Page 334. However, after the directions were given by this Court, most of the payments of. the arrears of monthly instalments were made. I do not, therefore, think that the husband should be deprived of his right to address me in the civil revision filed against him here. However, after the directions were given by this Court, most of the payments of. the arrears of monthly instalments were made. I do not, therefore, think that the husband should be deprived of his right to address me in the civil revision filed against him here. ( 3 ) THE wife had claimed that the husband himelf along with his family owned five properties. They are : 1. DE-100, Tagore Garden, New Delhi (Kothi ). 2. Commercial Plot in Okhia, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. 3. Premises No. 9936 (Comml.) New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 4. House No. 48/56, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. 5. Premises No. 9775, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (Tenanted Premises ). ( 4 ) THE wife has also detailed the various sources of income and business of the petitioner and his family : They are : 1. Income from coal business at the premises No. 9936. 2. Income from fire-bricks and fire-clay in premises No. 9936. 3. Income from the Steel Rolling Mills at premises No. 9936. 4. Income from coal business at the premises 9975. 5. Rental Income of House No. 48/56, Anand Parbat, New Delhi. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the said properties and business, the wife has submitted that the respondent husband and his family are living a very affluent life. They have purchased property No. DE-100, Tagore Gardens, which is a double storeyed building, where the four members of the family stay. There are three telephones at premises No. DE-100, Tagore Gardens, No. 9936 at New Rohtak Road and No. 9775, New Rohtak Road, where the business is carried out. The respondent husband and all the family members are all income-tax payers. A commercial plot at Subzi Mandi, Okhla has also been purchased by the respondent husband. The residential property DE-100, Tagore Gardens and the commercial plot at Subzi Mandi, Okhla are purchased within the period of 3/4 years, between 1972 to 1976 by the respondent, whose value is easily over a million rupees. ( 6 ) AT the trial before the learned Judge the wife gave as many particulars as possible regarding the properties and business of the husband. In the nature of things it is very difficult for anyone to know the exact properties and the income from the business. ( 6 ) AT the trial before the learned Judge the wife gave as many particulars as possible regarding the properties and business of the husband. In the nature of things it is very difficult for anyone to know the exact properties and the income from the business. Since the husband has the personal knowledge of his properties and income it was incumbent on him to produce all the necessary evidence, including documents of title and the accounts books. The learned Judge has noted that no particulars of the property were produced by the husband and no accounts books were produced. As regards the rental income from the House No. 48/56, Anand Parbat, neither the title deed nor the counterfoils of rent receipts were produced but it was broadly asserted that the income was Rs. 650. 00 per month. ( 7 ) THE trial Court has accepted all the submissions of the petitioner wife. The respondent husband has contended that the petitioner held a FDR for Rs. 10. 000. 00 and a savings bank account containing about Rs. 2,300. 00. According to the husband this amount was sufficient for the maintenance of the wife. The trial Court has found that the respondent husband is in possession of the FDR and the savings bank pass-book and he has withheld them from the wife. The learned Judge has further found that as regards the business run in the name of Mahavir Prasad Jain and Co. in premises No. 9936, New Rohtak Road, Delhi, the husband has not cared to produce the accounts books to substantiate his contention that the annual profit was between Rs. 20,000. 00 to Rs. 25,000. 00 and not more. The Court has rightly not placed much importance on the fact that there is an income-tax order in regard to this business because the income is shown as less thanrs. 25,000. 00and the accounts books are not checked by the Income-tax Officer being a small return. The learned Judge has, rightly considered in para 22 all the investments made by the husband during the short period. Having rightly analysed the evidence on record, the inference drawn by the learned Judge does not seem to be correct. As regards the husband s contention that he was getting Rs, 7,000. 00 to Rs. 8,000. The learned Judge has, rightly considered in para 22 all the investments made by the husband during the short period. Having rightly analysed the evidence on record, the inference drawn by the learned Judge does not seem to be correct. As regards the husband s contention that he was getting Rs, 7,000. 00 to Rs. 8,000. 00 per annum from this business, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the income was not less than Rs. 14,000. 00 per annum, i. e. Rs. 1,200. 00 per month. The learned Judge has observed that the husband is interested in frustrating the claim of the respondent and is anxious to suppress his income and reduce it to the extent possible. Once the trial Court was (Convinced about the effort of the husband to Suppress his income, the learned Judge should have looked into the particulars of the daily transactions in the said businesses furnished by way of evidence on behalf of the wife in support of her claim that the income from the said business was Rs. 15,000. 00 per month. ( 8 ) AS regards the business at premises No. 9775 at New Rohtak Road, according to the wife the husband is earning about Rs. 5,000. 00 per month from this business. The husband contended that it was a sole proprietorship business of his father andhe had no income from it. This fact is contradicted by the father of the husband himself. The father has admitted that the business being run in this shop is assessed for income-tax as a partnership firm. The learned Judge has rightly disbelieved the husband s contention that the family was not a joint family and the business was not a joint family business. The learned Judge has found that it was a device to avoid income-tax. Having held all this against the respondent husband the learned Judge has not analysed the evidence regarding the income from this business and has surmised that the husband s income from this business is not more than Rs. 500. 00 per month. ( 9 ) AS regards the Rolling Steel Mill business the learned Judge has found that the Mill had been originally started in the name of the husband, but in view of the pendency of this case the name had been changed to Premsons Industries. 500. 00 per month. ( 9 ) AS regards the Rolling Steel Mill business the learned Judge has found that the Mill had been originally started in the name of the husband, but in view of the pendency of this case the name had been changed to Premsons Industries. The falsity of the claim of the husband that the Steel Mill was the business of the father and the part of the premises are in his tenancy from his wife (i. e. husband s mother) has been exposed by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has found that the rent receipts are fabricated for the purpose of this case. The learned Judge has also found that the accounts books and the ledgers are not produced. Having found all these items as suppression of the proper material, the Court has again come to a low estimate of the husband s income from this business, viz. Rs. 800. 00 p. m. ( 10 ) THE counsel for the husband has referred to some income-tax assessments and the assessment orders. He has also produced some documents showing that Premsons Industries is the sole proprietary business of the father. So also, he has produced the copy of the agreement to sell the Tagore Garden House and the Partnership Deed in relation to Mahavir Prasad Jain and Co. Some of these documents are exhibited and others are not. The documents which are exhibited are considered by the trial Judges. The trial Court rightly did not attach much importance to these documents because the respondent husband has suppressed the accounts books, the ledgers and similar documents which would correctly reflect the profits made in these businesses, and also investments made in the landed properties. ( 11 ) THE learned Judge on a very low assessment of the income of the husband has come to the conclusion that from all the sources his income is about Rs. 2,500. 00 per month. Having gone through the evidence on record, the income of the husband can easily be assessed at Rs. 6,000. 00 per month. While deciding the amount of ad interim maintenance the learned Judge also ought to have taken into consideration the properties of the husband and his joint family and their business and social status. Considering these aspects of the matter, I award a sum of Rs. 1,500. 6,000. 00 per month. While deciding the amount of ad interim maintenance the learned Judge also ought to have taken into consideration the properties of the husband and his joint family and their business and social status. Considering these aspects of the matter, I award a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 (rupees one thousand five hundred only) as pendente lite maintenance for the wife and the child. Even if the income of the husband is taken to be Rs. 2,5007- per month, on the facts of this case I would have. no hesitation in awarding Rs. 1,500. 00 to the wife and the child for maintenance. The marriage took place in 1980 and within two years when the wife was pregnant she was left in the tenement hired as a matrimonial home in Narang Colony. The husband left the wife and went and stayed with the parents in the Tagore Garden House. He never cared for the wife and did not pay any maintenance to her. He withheld the FDR and the savings bank pass-book and falsely alleged that she had the income of her own. He had not paid the maintenance amount as directed by the Court in spite of the fact that the Court had permitted him to make the payments in instalments. On his own he was contributing only Rs. 250. 00 as the mess charges to the joint family and was not paying anything for his accommodation. If the husband was claiming his joint family connection for showing that the businesses and the properties did not belong to him, he cannot deny that most of his expenses are borne by the joint family. His child is now about four years old. The child would now be required to join some school. His school expenses, expenses on clothings, medicine, toys, etc. for the children of this age are very large. The rising prices and the high cost of maintenance would show that a sum of Rs. 750. 00 is not even sufficient for bare maintenance. The wife and the child are entitled to live according to the status of the husband. Considering the past experience the respondent-husband is warned mat if the amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,500. 00 per month is not paid punctually before the 10th day of each month, the Court will be constrained to take strong action for compliance of its order. Considering the past experience the respondent-husband is warned mat if the amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,500. 00 per month is not paid punctually before the 10th day of each month, the Court will be constrained to take strong action for compliance of its order. The civil revision is allowed with costs. The costs in this court are quantified at Rs. 2. 000. 00.