JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J.: - Parties were married on 17th January, 2000. They have three children; all minor. The marriage turned sour. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The reconciliation before the Matrimonial Court failed despite attempts made. The wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for interim maintenance for herself and her children. 2. In response to the application, the husband pleaded that his wife was running a business and had sufficient means to maintain her and their children. The wife continues to live in the house purchased for her by the husband. He lives elsewhere. The Matrimonial Court, as an interim measure, has awarded Rs.50,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.15,000/- each to the children. Litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- have also been awarded. The order passed by the Matrimonial Court on 17th May, 2014 is under challenge. The husband claims that he has great love and affection for his children and has deposited their entire school fee till the last session. He undertakes to deposit the school fee of his children in the current session. The petitioner pleads in reply to the application that he left the matrimonial house under compelling circumstances without informing the wife. His income record and bank account numbers are with the wife inaccessible to him. He is unable to pay the insurance premium on policies of his children taken out from 2003 to 2012 for lack of documents and thus he was unable to pay the premium after 2012. He owned three cars, two of which are sold. The wife has her own car and scooter purchased from her own income for her use. He was earlier working in the Sahara Group collecting money for the company. He owns and possesses firearms including a .315 bore rifle, a .32 bore revolver and a .12 bore DBBL shot gun which are lying deposited with the police. The income assessed by the Matrimonial Court is excessive and has not been verified or assessed reasonably. He prays that the impugned order be set aside. 3. The wife to substantiate her claim for interim maintenance produced the electricity bills of the matrimonial house but the husband says that the bills were paid by her from her income. He had bought privilege and partnership cards of hotel Park Plaza, Ludhiana at the insistence of the wife. He prays that the impugned order be set aside. 3. The wife to substantiate her claim for interim maintenance produced the electricity bills of the matrimonial house but the husband says that the bills were paid by her from her income. He had bought privilege and partnership cards of hotel Park Plaza, Ludhiana at the insistence of the wife. The initial amount was paid but no further amount was deposited and he was no longer a member of any hotel group for holiday travel and pleasure. The children are studying at the DAV Public School, Ludhiana in 1st, 6th and 8th classes. She incurs recurring expenses of at least Rs.10,000/- per month per child. The wife and the children were abandoned on 10th September, 2013 but live in a flat purchased in Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana where they reside. She asserts that the husband is a property dealer and owns various plots, flats, houses and himself claims to be earning Rs.1 crore annually. He has a fleet of luxury cars and weapons. She has no exact knowledge of his professional work and properties of the husband. The petitioner asserts that she has no income of her own. She asserts that the husband indulges in unethical activities. He presented her with the diamond set which he claimed cost Rs.16 lacs. He is a member of luxurious clubs including the Nirwana Club and Fortune Park Classic (FPC). He has withdrawn money from his accounts and opened new accounts to avoid liability of paying maintenance to his wife and children. He has left credit outstanding at a Karyana shop. The wife has no means to pay for domestic gas, salaries of domestic servants, petrol bills and conveyance charges for herself and her school going children. She claims maintenance @ Rs.1 lac per month and Rs.25,000/- each for the minor children. Contesting the application, the facts pleaded in the application have not been directly or specifically refuted or answered. The reply contains general denials and is vague and evasive. 4. Learned counsel for the wife argues that what is not specifically denied is admitted. The reply is very weak and therefore leaves wide discretion to the Matrimonial Court in assessing interim maintenance pending the divorce petition on the material assertions and documents placed on record by the wife. 5. The reply contains general denials and is vague and evasive. 4. Learned counsel for the wife argues that what is not specifically denied is admitted. The reply is very weak and therefore leaves wide discretion to the Matrimonial Court in assessing interim maintenance pending the divorce petition on the material assertions and documents placed on record by the wife. 5. In the face of the terribly feeble defense set up in the reply to the application, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in her order dated 17th May, 2014 awarding interim maintenance cannot be faulted as being either erroneous or perverse. The Court has found inter alia from the electricity bills in the name of the husband ranging from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per cycle. This is relevant material to assess the affluent life style maintained by the parties. The wife placed on record purchase receipts of a few cars i.e. Chevrolet Cruze, Tata Indigo, Santro etc. in the name of the husband together with their insurance policies. She has placed on record his account statements in the Oriental Bank of Commerce including the receipts of purchase of expensive weapons, the receipts of tuition fee and other admission charges of the minor children. The Court has concluded that the husband is a man of means and maintains a lavish life style. If that is so and is not specifically denied, it is then the business of the husband when he stays away from his family to continue his wife and children in the same financial and social status as he made them enjoy during the period prior to filing of the divorce petition by him. The discretion exercised by the learned Matrimonial Court on the materials placed before the trial Judge for its consideration is not open to interference in appeal and that too lightly. If the reply to the application under Section 24 of the HMA is vague and evasive, then nothing has been placed even before this Court in this petition to take a contrary view or downsize the maintenance package. 6. No sufficient ground is made out to tinker with the interim dispensation handed down by the matrimonial Court pending trial. If the reply to the application under Section 24 of the HMA is vague and evasive, then nothing has been placed even before this Court in this petition to take a contrary view or downsize the maintenance package. 6. No sufficient ground is made out to tinker with the interim dispensation handed down by the matrimonial Court pending trial. However, if the husband has concrete material of any change in circumstances after the passing of the impugned order, he is at liberty to apply to the Matrimonial Court for re-consideration on such material, if any, to down scale the interim maintenance if it is factually justified on any new materials brought on record. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————