JUDGMENT : G.S. SISTANI, J. 1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the Trial Court on an application filed by Respondent u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance. It is stated that learned Trial Court wrongly assessed the income of the Petitioner to be not less than Rs. 40,0000/- and has fixed maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned Trial Court has failed to consider the submission of the Petitioner that Petitioner is earning only Rs. 3,000 per month and is working as a trainee with a private firm. 3. The necessary facts which required to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.5.2007, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At that time the Petitioner was working at Angola and was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The Petitioner claims that he has qualifications of Master in Marketing Management. The Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for annulment of marriage. The entire thrust of argument of Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner has placed on record documents in support of his plea that he is earning Rs. 3,000 per month which has not been considered by the trial Court. 4. The High Court had issued notice in this petition and directed the ADM to conduct an inquiry with regard to salary of the Petitioner and as per report of the ADM, Petitioner does not own any immovable properties and earns only Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that there is no material paced on record by the Respondent either before the trial Court or before this Court with regard to income of the Petitioner Counsel further submits that appointment letter issued by M/s. Sirifort Associates, copy of which was handed over in Court today, would show that the employer had considered the fact that cases were pending against the Petitioner and he would have to leave work and attend Court cases, thus he was not given a full time job. Notice was issued to M/s. Sirifort Associates to produce salary register of all the employees. The salary details for the month of December, 2010 have been produced to show that there are only three employees, in addition to the Petitioner, who are earning Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 9,823/- and Rs. 8,000 respectively. Notice was issued to M/s. Sirifort Associates to produce salary register of all the employees. The salary details for the month of December, 2010 have been produced to show that there are only three employees, in addition to the Petitioner, who are earning Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 9,823/- and Rs. 8,000 respectively. Salary of the Petitioner has been shown as Rs. 3,000/- per month. A letter dated 17.11.2010 addressed to the Petitioner by the employer has also been produced, to show that on account of criminal, civil cases and arrest by the police, the employer is no longer willing to keep him on their rolls. Aforesaid facts, according to the Petitioner, would show that Petitioner is earning only Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is submitted that out of this amount, he has to look after his old and ailing parents and also maintain himself and thus, the Trial Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding maintenance (r) Rs. 12,000/- per month. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is unable to get a job, because his passport has been retained by the police, at the instance of the Respondent. 6. Counsel for the Respondent has opposed this petition on the ground that Petitioner had concealed his true income before Trial Court and, thus, taking into consideration the settled position of law and as the Petitioner failed to disclose his true income, the Trial Court on the basis of guesswork has arrived at a figure. It is also submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court the Respondent has filed an affidavit to show that age of his parents is 74 years and 67 years respectively and they are dependent on him. It is also submitted that Petitioner is residing in a 'Janta' flat, which is owned by his sister and he does not pay any rent to her. 7. Counsel for Respondent next submits that the documents produced by M/s. Sirifort Associates have been manoeuvred and further the Petitioner is well qualified person, who by his own showing was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and it is not expected from a person earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month would accept the job of a trainee and would be paid less than the minimum wages. 1,00,000/- per month and it is not expected from a person earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month would accept the job of a trainee and would be paid less than the minimum wages. It is submitted that even reply to the petition u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was evasive and there is no categorical denial of the allegations made in the petition. Counsel for the Respondent next submits that even assuming without admitting that the Petitioner is residing in a flat which belongs to his sister and no rent is being paid to her but it is reasonably expected that at least the Petitioner would be paying water, electricity charges and house-tax. It is submitted that the affidavit filed, is silent on this account, which would show that Petitioner has made yet another attempt to not place the correct and true facts before this Court. It is submitted that the appointment letter is a procured letter as the letter itself shows that Petitioner had disclosed to his employer that civil and criminal cases are pending against him. It is submitted that a careful reading of the appointment letter would show that it has been drafted with a view to help the Petitioner, and that same reasoning is with regard to letter dated 17.11.2010. Counsel for the Respondent submits that it is only in the year 2007 that a complaint was lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 498A/406, IPC and after the Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, no further action has been taken by the police, no other criminal case is pending against the Petitioner. It is also submitted that Respondent has not pressed the complaint and there has been no occasion for the police to either contact the Petitioner or his employer. 8. Counsel for the Respondent further submits that no doubt the passport has been retained by the police but since the Petitioner is comfortable in India with his job he has not made a single application before any Court for release of the passport in case the Petitioner was being adversely affected by the passport being retained, certainly he would have made attempts for release of the same. Learned Counsel next submits that Respondent is unemployed and in fact has never worked after marriage. Counsel also submits that it is not the case of the Petitioner that Respondent is gainfully employed. Learned Counsel next submits that Respondent is unemployed and in fact has never worked after marriage. Counsel also submits that it is not the case of the Petitioner that Respondent is gainfully employed. He also submits that a bare reading of the reply of the Petitioner u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would show that Petitioner has only made general denial and thus the Trial Court was left with no option but to do some guesswork and arrived at a figure of Rs. 40,000 per month, on a conservative estimate. He has also relied on a recent decision, Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain (2010) DMC 275 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed that a highly qualified Chartered Accountant, ICWA, CIMA, having completed the course of Computer Information Technology and having worked in renowned companies like M/s. Kimberly Clark and M/s. Tata Technology as Finance Manager and Senior SAP Consultant, would be earning Rs. 30,000 per month is improbable. Para 9 of the judgment reads as under: 9. In a case such as the present one, the stand of the husband that he is drawing salary of Rs. 30,000 per month from the company since August 2005 is inherently improbable. The husband is highly qualified; he is CA, ICWA, CIMA and has also completed course of Computer Information Technology. He has worked with renowned and big companies like M/s. Kimberly Clark and M/s. Tata Technology as Finance Manager and Senior SAP Consultant respectively before he started on his own in January, 2000. He did not leave the job due to any compulsion but because he wanted to grow big. He has admitted that having worked for six years, he decided to do his own business and started the company, namely, M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited in which he has sought financial/administrative help of his brother and one Ms. Nilima Apte. How can it be believed that a person who has started his own business leaving the job in 2,000 would start drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company from August, 2005? The High Court has not taken into consideration these vital aspects and accepted the statement of the husband that he was drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month as a gospel truth. 30,000/- per month from the company from August, 2005? The High Court has not taken into consideration these vital aspects and accepted the statement of the husband that he was drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month as a gospel truth. Insofar as wife is concerned, it appears that she does not have any settled job; she has worked at few places for few months. We think this is eminently a case in which the High Court must reconsider the wife's application for interim maintenance. 9. Counsel for the Respondent in support of his submission that any attempt by the Respondent to conceal his true income would justify adverse inference of the Court; and also the fact that Courts have observed that there is a growing trend of parties concealing their income and thus some guesswork is required to be made by the Courts, relied on Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, (1997) 7 SCC 7 and also relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta, (1990) 2 DMC 427 wherein it has been held that the husband's income would be within the special knowledge of the husband and the onus is on the husband to disclose his true and correct income; and his failure to disclose the same without good reason would entitle the Court to presume against him and accept the allegations of the wife as to the amount of income. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors. (supra), has observed that "where diverse claims are made by the parties some conjectures and guesswork by Court are permissible". Para 8 of the judgment reads as under: 8. The wife has no fixed abode of residence. She says she is living in a Gurudwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand the husband has sufficient income and a house to himself The wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the Courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the Courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month payable by Respondent-husband to the Appellant wife. 11. I have heard Counsel for the parties and also perused the order of trial court. Some of the undisputed facts which emerge are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.5.2007. Parties barely resided together when a petition for annulment was filed by the Petitioner on 18.6.2007 prior to marriage, Petitioner was working as a Manager in Angola and was drawing salary of Rs. 1,00,000 per month. There is no dispute to the fact that Petitioner has placed on record documents to show that he is earning Rs. 3,000 per month from M/s. Sirfort Associates since March 2008. There is no dispute to the fact that Petitioner has placed on record documents to show that he is earning Rs. 3,000 per month from M/s. Sirifort Associates since March, 2008. It is also not in dispute that this Court directed the ADM to conduct inquiry and as per the report of the ADM the Petitioner is earning Rs. 3,000 per month and there is no immovable property in his name. 12. The short question which comes up for consideration before this Court is, should the documents in support of the salary of the Petitioner at Rs. 3,000 per month and the report of the ADM, be considered as reliable or not. 3,000 per month and there is no immovable property in his name. 12. The short question which comes up for consideration before this Court is, should the documents in support of the salary of the Petitioner at Rs. 3,000 per month and the report of the ADM, be considered as reliable or not. The trial Court while considering that a person who was earlier earning Rs. 1,00,000 per month would join a job where he gets a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month has also considered that Petitioner did not deny his qualifications and experience and the fact that he was earning Rs. 1,00,000 per month in Angola, and on these basis the trial Court did not rely upon the certificate issued by the employer of the Petitioner and assessed the income of the Petitioner to be not less than Rs. 40,000 per month. No doubt the appointment letter which has been placed on record shows that Petitioner joined M/s. Sirifort Associates as a trainee and the initial probation period was one year. There is nothing on record to suggest that either the employer did confirm the probation or extended the period of probation of the Petitioner. 13. There are various factors which give an impression that the Petitioner has not disclosed his true income and the appointment letter is an unreliable and self-secured document. 14. It is strange that in today's day and age the Petitioner is working at a salary which is less than minimum wages and less than what even a peon or sweeper would be earning with M/s. Sirifort Associates. It is also unbelievable that Petitioner was not given any increment after 7th March, 2008. The purpose of directing M/s. Sirifort Associates to produce the salary register of all the employees, including the Petitioner was to apprise the Court in case the company was paying minimum salary to their employees, including the peon, sweeper and other Class IV employee, and also to ascertain as to whether the Petitioner was concealing his true or correct income. 15. Although M/s. Sirifort Associates are represented through Counsel, who has handed over a copy of the appointment letter, a tabulation, to show that Petitioner was paid Rs. 3,000 per month from April to December, 2010. Names of three employees and their salary is mentioned, but no other relevant document has been produced. 15. Although M/s. Sirifort Associates are represented through Counsel, who has handed over a copy of the appointment letter, a tabulation, to show that Petitioner was paid Rs. 3,000 per month from April to December, 2010. Names of three employees and their salary is mentioned, but no other relevant document has been produced. Except that the submission made that it is very small firm with only three employees. The documents which have been placed on record by M/s. Sirifort Associates do not inspire confidence at all. Similar is the view with regard to the report of the ADM, which is on the basis of the documents produced by the Petitioner himself before the ADM. The surrounding circumstances would show that Petitioner seems to be comfortable by earning Rs. 3,000 per month, as he has not bothered to make any application for release of his passport. This would show that he has no intention seeking employment abroad. 16. Having regard to the fact that FIR has been registered under Sections 498-A/406, IPC, in which anticipatory bail was granted to the Petitioner, as far back as in the year 2007, there would be no reason for any police officials to visit the residence of the Petitioner and place of employer. It seems that all this has been written in the letter dated 17.10.2010 at the behest of the Petitioner and to help the Petitioner. 17. While it is understandable that after losing job at Angola the Petitioner may not have been offered a job at Rs. 1,00,000 a month but for the Petitioner to have accepted a job for Rs. 3,000 per month from 2008 onwards is highly improbable and unrealistic. 18. Having held that the documents placed on record with regard to employment of the Petitioner do not inspire any confidence and the settled position of law as noticed in the case jasbir Kaur (supra), and various other cases, wherein the Apex Court has repeatedly held that in the absence of any true income being disclosed by the parties, some guesswork is permitted by the Court, I do not think that a person, who is earning Rs. 1,00,000 per month, would accept a sum of Rs. 3,000 that also as an trainee and support his parents, pay charges of electricity and water, house-tax in a flat which is owned by his sister, in that income only. 1,00,000 per month, would accept a sum of Rs. 3,000 that also as an trainee and support his parents, pay charges of electricity and water, house-tax in a flat which is owned by his sister, in that income only. Obviously, the Petitioner is not disclosing his correct and true income. Even otherwise, I find no infirmity in the order of the trial Court, which would warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. It may also be noted that by order dated 8.3.2010 this Court had directed the Petitioner to pay at least Rs. 6,000 per month as maintenance, even this amount has not been paid by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed CM. Nos. 18852 & 7860/2009 & CM. No. 14345/2010 19. In view of the order passed in the petition, the applications stand disposed of.