JUDGEMNT SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16th November 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge under Sections 25 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) on an application of the wife (respondent herein) whereby she granted maintenance of Rs.7000/-per month for the wife and the child and Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses. 2. In her application the wife had claimed that the petitioner was running a motor garage in the name and style of M/s Pankaj Motors at the premises bearing number F-15, West Patel Nagar and he was having 5/6 employees. He had monthly income of more than Rs.60,000/-. He was having his own house and a car and leading a luxurious life. She herself had no source of income and did not have sufficient means to sustain and maintain herself and the child. In response, the husband (petitioner herein) denied that he was running a motor garage and stated that he was earlier in a private job on a salary of Rs.12,00/-per month plus two meals a day but after the litigation with the wife, he has been thrown out of his job and presently he was jobless. In respect of his wife he stated that his wife was working as a receptionist in a private company and was earning Rs.3000 per month as salary. She was also giving tuitions earning Rs.1500/-to Rs.2000/-per month from tuitions. She was also having additional qualification of cooking, beauty parlor job and was earning Rs.2500 per month from these qualifications. 3. During pendency of the application under Section 24, a photocopy of salary certificate was produced by the husband before Trial Court showing his salary as Rs.2200 per month from a private employer. Learned ADJ observed that the period of the salary certificate produced by husband was the same during which the husband claimed that he was unemployed. Husband had not placed on record the original salary certificate but only a photocopy of the same. The learned trial court also found that the husband had filed a petition for custody and guardianship of the child wherein he stated that he was a self employed person and was working as a car mechanic. He had reasonable income from his self-employment so as to maintain the child and have the custody and guardianship of the child. The learned trial court also found that the husband had filed a petition for custody and guardianship of the child wherein he stated that he was a self employed person and was working as a car mechanic. He had reasonable income from his self-employment so as to maintain the child and have the custody and guardianship of the child. The trial court found that the husband has not approached the court with clean hands and the averments made about his being employed at a month salary of Rs.1200 or Rs.2200 were all false. 4. During arguments counsel for the petitioner had nothing new to say on quantum maintenance and kept on insisting that the petitioner was only an employee and again relied upon the salary certificate filed by him before the trial court. He also placed on record the order of the learned MM under Section 125 Cr.PC fixing maintenance of Rs.1000 per month for the wife and Rs.500/-per month for the child on the ground that the income of the petitioner was Rs.2500/-and submitted that trial court had not considered the order passed by the MM. 5. I have perused the salary certificate filed by the husband wherein the husband has been shown as trainee motor mechanic. He seems to have been shown as a trainee by the person who issued the salary certificate as otherwise he would have been caught under Minimum Wages Act. It is not the case of the husband that he was working as a trainee motor mechanic with anybody. Before the guardianship court, the husband had taken the stand that he was a self-employed car mechanic. A person can work as a self-employed car mechanic only if he is an expert car mechanic. A person self employed as a car mechanic obviously would need workshop and some helpers to help him in his profession of car mechanic. The trial court thus rightly believed that the husband had come to the court with unclean hands and deiberately filed a false certificate. The order passed by learned MM further fortifies this. Before MM, the husband had taken a plea that his income from the job of car mechanic was Rs.2500 per month. The trial court thus rightly believed that the husband had come to the court with unclean hands and deiberately filed a false certificate. The order passed by learned MM further fortifies this. Before MM, the husband had taken a plea that his income from the job of car mechanic was Rs.2500 per month. The learned MM had only taken this income into account and fixed the maintenance of Rs.1000 for the wife and Rs.500 for the child, without going into the controversy of the real income of the husband. The order of learned MM is only an interim order not binding on the court of learned ADJ and was rightly ignored by the court of ADJ. 6. It is petitioners own contention in the reply to the application under Section 24 of HMA that the wifes parents were having no income and the wife was supporting them. However, he has not provided the name of the private company where his wife was allegedly employed. Even otherwise, the claim made by the petitioner about wifes income are all imaginary claims. If she had been employed with a private company, the husband would have at least disclosed the name of that private company. Even otherwise, the job of a receptionist in a private company has to be a full time job and if she was employed as a full time receptionist, how could she give tuitions and also work as beautician. The husband has not only given a false certificate about his income but has also made false averments about the wifes employment and income. 7. I consider such a person does not deserve sympathy of the Court. The petitioner has misused the judicial process. The petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. The cost to be paid by the husband to wife before the trial court..