JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 31.5.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II),Shimla in Application No. 59-S/6 of 2014 whereby he granted interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent. 2. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act’) for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty. During the pendency of the petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente-lite and expenses of proceedings was preferred on the ground that she was working as a teacher at Abohar (Punjab) and did not have much income and was not in a position to maintain herself in a proper manner and was not in a position to bear the day to day expenses. It was alleged that though the respondent had income of her own but the same was not sufficient to support her or even to meet her necessary expenses. The petitioner on the other hand was stated to be earning about more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month as he was working as Lecturer at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mouli, District Panchkula and belonged to a rich family, who own a house in Shimla and huge land holdings at Pathankot. On such basis, the respondent lay claim of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as travelling allowance and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The petitioner filed reply wherein it was stated that as per his knowledge, the respondent was getting Rs.40,000/- as monthly salary and apart therefrom was earning out of tuition she was taking at home. 4. The learned Court below granted maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent by according the following reasons: “10. I do not find a considerable force to the submissions raised before me from the side of the husband. The court must bear in mind while granting interim maintenance, the standard of living to be enjoyed by wife at her matrimonial home. It is settled law that an arithmetical equality or inequality is not intended while granting any maintenance. The wife is supposed to meet all her requirements during the pendency of the final disposal of the petition. The court must bear in mind while granting interim maintenance, the standard of living to be enjoyed by wife at her matrimonial home. It is settled law that an arithmetical equality or inequality is not intended while granting any maintenance. The wife is supposed to meet all her requirements during the pendency of the final disposal of the petition. It is no answer to claim of maintenance, that the claimant could support herself and she acquired a good financial position. It is settled that where divorce claim raised by the parties, some conjectures and guess work by the court are impermissible. It is equally settled that court would not be in a position to judge the merits of the rival contention of the parties when deciding an application for interim alimony and would not allow its discretion to be fettered by the allegations made by them and would not examine by the merits of the case. In a case of working wife, our own High Court granted maintenance pendente-lite to wife. I am supported by the decision appeared in case Laxmi Sharma vs. Dr. Akash 2012(1) SLC 74, Radhika Negi vs. T.G. Negi (2012) 2 SLC 844. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I hereby allow the present application by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of application and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.” It is this order which has been challenged before this Court on the ground that the same is highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 6. At the initial stage this Court made an endeavour to settle the matter by appointing a Mediator but such proceedings failed. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.9.2014 both the parties were directed to file their latest salary slips before this Court. Vide order dated 18.9.2014 the case was ordered to be taken up for hearing today and the parties have filed their respective salary statements. 7. A perusal of the salary statement of the petitioner issued by his employer shows that the petitioner is receiving a gross payment of Rs. 47,991/- upon which deduction on account of CPF, GSLIS, Income Tax etc. to the extent of Rs.7386/- are being applied and the net payment to the petitioner works out to Rs.40,605/-. 7. A perusal of the salary statement of the petitioner issued by his employer shows that the petitioner is receiving a gross payment of Rs. 47,991/- upon which deduction on account of CPF, GSLIS, Income Tax etc. to the extent of Rs.7386/- are being applied and the net payment to the petitioner works out to Rs.40,605/-. 8. On the other hand, the salary statement of the respondent shows that the respondent is getting gross salary of Rs.46,658/- upon which deductions of Rs. 4620/- on account of GPF, GIS and Income Tax are being made and thereafter a net payable income works out Rs.42,038/-. Now, when the respective salary statements are compared, in no event can it be said that the respondent is a destitute or does not have an income sufficient enough to support her and meet her necessary expenses. Therefore, the averments made by her in the application claiming maintenance are prima facie false and belied from her salary slip which shows that she is earning as much if not more than the petitioner. 9. The mere fact that the wife is working can not be a ground to refuse the grant of maintenance but when the wife is earning more than or equal to the husband, can maintenance still be awarded to her is a moot question? The learned Court below in support of its conclusion that even when the wife is earning she is still entitled to claim maintenance has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Laxmi Sharma vs. Dr. Akash Deep 2012 (1) Shim. L.C. 74. The facts of the case there were that the wife was working in a school and was being paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- per month and was bringing up her two children, while the respondent therein was Class-I Officer and was getting more than Rs.35,000/- per month. This Court thereafter taking into consideration these facts, had enhanced the compensation in favour of the wife from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, which amount included the maintenance of the wife and her two children and the litigation expenses were also enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 10. For the aforesaid proposition it has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Radhika Negi vs. T.G. Negi, 2012 (2) SLC 844. 10. For the aforesaid proposition it has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Radhika Negi vs. T.G. Negi, 2012 (2) SLC 844. A perusal thereof would show that there is not even a whisper regarding the wife being gainfully employed much less any details of her income being available on the record, therefore, this decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Sh. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner owes a moral duty to maintain the wife and the token amount of Rs.1500/- towards maintenance and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses in no event can be said to be excessive. No doubt, it is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife since the maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. However, when the wife approaches a Court claiming maintenance by filing application on the ground that she is not able to maintain herself, it is for her to prove such inability and in case when the Court ultimately decides after conducting the inquiry that she is entitled to maintenance, the said decision must necessarily based upon the material showing that the wife was unable to maintain herself when she filed an application. 12. From the records, it is established that not only the respondent is earning equivalent to that of the husband but it is proved on record that the income is more than sufficient to not only support but meet her necessary expenses. The contrary averments made in the application are required to be viewed seriously as the respondent has tried to mislead the Court by making false averments. It is well settled that a litigant who approaches the Court of law with unclean hands, suppresses material facts and makes false averments in the petition and/or tries to mislead or hoodwink, the judicial forum is not entitled to any relief either on equity or law. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is merit in this petition and the same is allowed and the order passed by the learned Court below is, therefore, set-aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.