JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has filed this petition to impugn the order directing payment of maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to respondent Reena wife of the petitioner. 2. Respondent Reena claiming herself to be legally wedded wife of Ritesh Kumar had approached the Family Court for grant of maintenance on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself and was being neglected. It was pleaded that the petitioner had beaten her and had turned her out of the matrimonial home wearing clothes and after snatching her Istridhan and ornaments etc. The petitioner, thus, had refused to keep and maintain the respondent. The respondent has also filed a case against the petitioner and his family members on the ground of misappropriation of dowry articles. 3. The petitioner had filed a written statement questioning the maintainability of the petition. It was pleaded that the respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands and she was not his legally wedded wife. As per the petitioner, respondent alongwith Ram Niwas had visited his house under a preplanned scheme and gave a proposal of marriage of the petitioner. The petitioner apprised Ram Niwas about his previous marriage, which had been dissolved and assured that he will produce the documents. The petitioner has otherwise admitted that he was employed as a Teacher in Education Department in Rajasthan, but states that after filing of the complaint, he was placed under suspension. 4. The Family Court recorded the evidence of the petitioner, who had reiterated all the pleas raised in the written statement. Om Parkash Pandit (PW-2) also appeared as a witness and stated that he had solemnised this marriage between the parties and a sum of Rs.100/- was given to him as Dakshina. Eleven persons were present at the time of marriage, including Kuldeep brother and sister-in-law of Ritesh Kumar petitioner. Sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the petitioner, namely, Neelam was examined as RW-1 and deposed that marriage of the petitioner was solemnised on 2.7.2001 with Shiksha and that after attending the marriage, she had returned to her matrimonial home. She stated that the petitioner has never married the respondent, but she was wrongly claiming herself to be the second wife. The petitioner also produced Sanju Soni and Naseed besides himself as a witness in this case. 5. She stated that the petitioner has never married the respondent, but she was wrongly claiming herself to be the second wife. The petitioner also produced Sanju Soni and Naseed besides himself as a witness in this case. 5. The Family Court after appreciating the evidence found that though the petitioner has denied his marriage with Reena, but there are certain links and inconsistencies in his defence. The petitioner himself has pleaded that the respondent and Ram Niwas had come to his house with the proposal of marriage, whereas in his affidavit, he has stated that Sajjan Singh, father of the petitioner and Ram Niwas had come to his house. The petitioner also pleaded that his ATM Card was taken away by the respondent and she withdrew the amount from his account, but did not produce any documentary evidence on this aspect. It is observed that the respondent could not have withdrawn the amount unless she was aware of the code number of the ATM, which the petitioner alone could tell her. There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the respondent could have access to ATM of the petitioner if she was not married to him etc. How a lady who came with proposal of marriage could have moved with the prayer for maintenance. Mere fact that no video CD was prepared would not be enough to show that there was no marriage. The petitioner having performed second marriage and after living with the respondent cannot be permitted to take shelter on the ground of it being a second marriage to escape from the liability of maintenance. 6. The Family Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the marriage was established and accordingly has allowed maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month taking the salary of the petitioner to be Rs.15,000/- he being a Teacher. In my view, the petitioner has tried to deceive the respondent and has also approached the Court with misleading and false pleas and so can not be heard in equity or otherwise in regard to the quantum of maintenance. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ------------------