Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner - wife, Doctor, by profession, is before this Court being aggrieved by order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad below application for interim maintenance. The petitioner has prayed that an interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month be awarded and an amount of Rs. 1 lac be awarded towards legal expenses. 1.1 Least it be said that the amount claimed is only with a view to harass the husband, it is clarified that the wife and the husband both are Doctor by profession and no reason why the wife should not ask for the maintenance amount as per the status of the husband. 2. Heard Mr. Popat, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nehul A. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent.. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the order in detail. The learned Judge, Family Court No. 4 has refused to grant interim maintenance for the reasons set out in Para-5 of the order, which reads as under:— “5. The applicant has stated that she does not have sufficient income but at the same time, it is on record that she is earning an amount of Rs. 38,471/- as stated in the affidavit by the petitioner-husband. This fact is not controverted by the respondent-wife and she states that eh husband is having may moveable and immovable properties worth lacs of rupees at various places. But this is a matter of proof and no evidence is adduced on record and it can be decided at the time of evidence is recorded. It is also the say of the wife that she is working on purely temporary and ad hoc basis at Bhavnagar but she has not stated that she is without income. Though she is on purely ad hoc basis, I am of the opinion that she is continued and has sufficient income to maintain herself according to the status of the parties and is also given accommodation by the medical college, at the same time, the petitioner-husband has to maintain two daughters, which is his bounden duty. Though the respondent-wife states that these daughters are from 2nd marriage, which is illegal but the daughters have to be maintained, as they have a right to be maintained. Though the respondent-wife states that these daughters are from 2nd marriage, which is illegal but the daughters have to be maintained, as they have a right to be maintained. So at this stage, considering the income of the both the parties and the status of the parties, as well as the dependents on the parties, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-wife has no case for granting her interim maintenance. So I pass following order:” 3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to averments made in Para-3 of the further affidavit filed by the applicant dated 28.06.2007. From the contents of Para-3, it is clear that the applicant - husband has not come forward with clean hands. He has not disclosed his income to the Court with supporting evidence and therefore, this Court has no hesitation in believing the averments made by the wife about his income. If the husband has nothing to hide, he should have produced the details of his income with supporting evidence. 4. Besides the aforesaid discussion, what is important is the conduct of the husband. Though the husband is settled at Jamnagar and the wife at Bhavnagar at the relevant point of time, the husband filed a petition before the Udeipur Court and to get that matter transferred to Ahmedabad, the wife had to travel all the way to Delhi and the Hon’le the Apex Court transferred the matter to Ahmedabad. This shows the temperament of the husband, who did not spare any stone unturned in harassing the wife by filing a petition at Udeipur. Technically it could be argued that the petition was maintainable at Udeipur because it is the case of the husband that they had last resided together at Udeipur. The fact that the husband knew that the wife is serving at Bhavnagar and he himself is settled at Jamnagar, there was no reason for him to file a petition in Udeipur Court, on account of which the wife had to incur expenses and also suffer inconvenience and had to face hardships in getting the matter transferred to Ahmedabad. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent-husband submitted that according to the information available with him, the wife is earning an amount of Rs. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent-husband submitted that according to the information available with him, the wife is earning an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- per month by serving as a Professor in Anesthetic in SBKS Medical & Research Institute at Baroda. The factum of wife being in service is required to be taken into consideration. But then, in the present case, the husband did not come forward controverting the submissions made by the wife about his income. In such situation, it is the duty of the Court to draw an adverse inference. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. Order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad below application for interim maintenance is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the respondent-husband shall pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per month towards interim maintenance. He is also directed to pay cost of this litigation, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). The respondent shall deposit the arrears of interim maintenance and also the cost of this litigation within 4 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P