ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Prabhugouda B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for M/s. M.T. Nanaiah Associates for petitioner and Sri James P. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records. 2. While issuing notice in W.P.No.54496/2017 connected with W.P.No.51465/2017, it was clarified as under: “Insofar as the order on IAXIX which is the subject matter in W.P.No.54496/2017, it is clarified that the injunction against alienation shall not be construed as an order against enjoyment of the property in any other manner including proceeding with the construction undertaken on the property”. 3. The points arise for consideration in these petitions are: (1) Whether order passed on IA.No.2 in M.C.No.2030/2010 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/to the respondent/wife and Rs.25,000/towards litigation expenses is required to be set aside, affirmed, modified or what order? (2) Whether order dated 17.11.2011 passed in M.C.No.2030/2010 allowing IA No.19 and restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the immovable properties more-fully specified or described in the affidavit filed along with said application, is required to be affirmed, set aside or modified or if so, what order? 4. Before delving upon the points formulated hereinabove, it would suffice to state the facts necessary for adjudication of said points. 5. The marriage of petitioner and respondent came to be solemnized on 14.11.2003 and seeking dissolution of said marriage, respondent/wife filed a petition in M.C.No.2030/2010 by presenting the said petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act’). Along with the petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act came to be filed seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.50,000/per month and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/pending disposal of such petition. An application for temporary injunction also came to be filed i.e., IA19 to restrain the respondent from disposing off, selling, encumbering, mortgaging or in any way alienating the immovable properties moreover described in the affidavit filed in support of the said application and as described there under. Both these applications have been allowed and aggrieved by the same, respondent/husband is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality in the said order. 6. As noticed hereinabove, respondent/wife has sought for interim maintenance @ Rs.50,000/per month and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/. Both these applications have been allowed and aggrieved by the same, respondent/husband is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality in the said order. 6. As noticed hereinabove, respondent/wife has sought for interim maintenance @ Rs.50,000/per month and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/. Insofar as award of litigation expenses is concerned, trial Court keeping in mind the status of both the parties as well as age of the litigation has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/, which cannot be construed as being excessive or exorbitant or commensurate with the present litigation. Said order awarding litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/does not call for any interference. In so far as maintenance of Rs.50,000/per month, which has been awarded by the learned Trial Judge is concerned, when examined in the background of the pleadings and contentions raised by Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri James P. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contending inter alia that learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the application in proper perspective and supporting the order passed by the learned Trial Judge respectively when examined in the background of pleadings, it would clearly emerge that petition was filed for dissolution of the marriage taken up between parties on 02.07.2010 and along with the main petition, an interlocutory application also came to be filed by the respondent/wife seeking interim maintenance. For reasons best known, said application was not adjudicated. Though learned Advocates appearing for both the parties would contend that no fault can be attributed to the parties to the lis, this Court would not embark upon conducting an enquiry in that regard, inasmuch as the fact remains that said application has remained without being adjudicated for the past seven years. In fact, learned Trial Judge under the impugned order while awarding maintenance has observed at paragraph7 of the order that when matter was at the stage of argument, petitioner namely, wife had pressed for said application being adjudicated and as such, same has been taken up for consideration. In fact, learned Trial Judge under the impugned order while awarding maintenance has observed at paragraph7 of the order that when matter was at the stage of argument, petitioner namely, wife had pressed for said application being adjudicated and as such, same has been taken up for consideration. It is trite law that when an application for maintenance is filed by the wife contending inter alia that she is without any income, the basic requirement which she has to disclose in her affidavit filed before Court is not only contending or stating that she is without any income, but it is also her duty to disclose all relevant facts which would be necessary for considering the application for grant of maintenance, inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge would undertake to examine such plea in the background either of the spouses contending that they are unable to maintain themselves from out of their income. It is in this background, the impugned order will have to be examined. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed by wife raising several grounds including the ground of cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by the petitioner/husband. Said issue is being examined by the trial Court and seized of it. Hence, any opinion expressed by this Court in these proceedings is likely to prejudice the rights of either of the parties. Hence, it is not touched upon in these writ petitions. Learned Trial Judge after having noticed the extent of properties alleged to be owned by the husband has opined that he had not produced any documents to reveal the actual income earned by the wife and as such, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner/wife would be entitled for maintenance of Rs.50,000/per month in the light of properties owned by husband. Prima facie, evidence tendered by the parties which was very much available before the learned trial Judge discloses the following facts: “Petitioner/wife is a graduate in Bachelor of Engineering in Architect and she has worked in several companies. In fact she admits this fact in the cross-examination dated 18.08.2014 at paras8 and 9 and her admission which reads as under: 8. Respondent never told me that where he was working. After the marriage respondent told that he completed MBA and at the time of doing Ph.D. he got a job. In fact she admits this fact in the cross-examination dated 18.08.2014 at paras8 and 9 and her admission which reads as under: 8. Respondent never told me that where he was working. After the marriage respondent told that he completed MBA and at the time of doing Ph.D. he got a job. I studied in B.E. in Architect. I have completed my degree in the year 19992000. I worked as Architect in Patrick Monterio, G.D.R., A.T.L., before my marriage. I intend to join Sundaram Architects before my marriage but respondent and his family members have not allowed to join it. 9. After marriage, I worked in Mainstay and Mind set Technology. I left the job of Mind set Technology in 2009. It is false to suggest that I left job of Mind set Technology on 21.09.2011. At that time, my gross salary was Rs.15,000/per month. I was getting salary of Rs.19,000/in Mainstay company. It is true that the gross salary of Rs.2,10,000/was offered to me from Mainstay company. The xerox copies of the salary structure and confirmation of my investment to mutual funds now shown to me are my documents. As the witness admit these documents they are marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2. As respondent and his family members told me that respondent is having good earnings and I need not work, I didn’t go to job for about two years. I joined the services during November, 2005. During 2005 I was already in my parents’ house and I had to look after myself, hence, I joined the service. Myself and respondent are not resided cordially not even a single day.” (emphasis supplied) In the cross-examination dated 09.11.2016 she has also admitted that she has not disclosed these facts before the Court. She further contends that she does not remember the names of companies in which she has worked. She further states that she can produce her salary slips relating to the company ‘Mainstay Tele Services’, but, did not produce the same. She also admits that when she was working in the said company, she had bank account in HDFC Bank at J.P. Nagar Branch. However, account extracts of the said account was not produced. She also admits that she has traveled abroad many times. She states that she can produce the details regarding her job. She also admits that when she was working in the said company, she had bank account in HDFC Bank at J.P. Nagar Branch. However, account extracts of the said account was not produced. She also admits that she has traveled abroad many times. She states that she can produce the details regarding her job. To the suggestion made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband that she has been working in different companies and earning sufficiently well, she has denied the said suggestion. Thus, initial burden of proof cast on husband has been discharged and in view of admission that she is an engineering graduate and was working in many companies and also having bank account and burden was on her to prove that she is without any avocation and she is in financial distress. Burden is on the person who asserts and burden of proof keeps on oscillating depending upon the admission elicited in evidence. The burden of proof cannot stagnate. In this background, evidence on record will have to be appreciated and the person, who possessed or is having best piece of evidence available, if fails to produce said evidence before Court, necessarily adverse interference will have to be drawn for non-production of such vital evidence. In the instant case, respondent/wife has admitted that she is having mutual funds at HDFC bank and she pleads her lack of memory in not remembering what is her balance amount as on 17.10.2016 in her bank account. In so far as suggestion made to her that her balance in the bank account as on 17.10.2016 is Rs.2,74,000/, she has pleaded her inability to remember said fact. A suggestion having been made that she is getting more than Rs.1 lakh per month as income from different mutual funds, she has denied the suggestion. Respondent/wife has suppressed her salary income and mutual funds income and she has admitted that she would produce her bank account statements. But except the bank account statement (Ex.P.3), no other documents have been produced. In the cross-examination dated 13.12.2013, she states that she will produce her four bank account statements if the Court orders for production of the same. Respondent/wife has suppressed her salary income and mutual funds income and she has admitted that she would produce her bank account statements. But except the bank account statement (Ex.P.3), no other documents have been produced. In the cross-examination dated 13.12.2013, she states that she will produce her four bank account statements if the Court orders for production of the same. When respondent/wife is claiming that she is penniless, unable to maintain herself or being in penury and facing financial difficulties, minimum evidence which was required to be placed before Court was her pass book, bank account statements which she possessed, which would have revealed the truth before Court. Yet, without disclosing these facts in her pleadings and by suppressing the facts before trial Court, she had made the trial Court to believe that she is without any income to maintain herself. In fact, documents confronted to her she admits she has property at Mysore allotted by the Mysuru Urban and Development Authority and photo copy of the application submitted to MUDA was not admitted in evidence since she did not admit the hand writing found in the document and as such, same was not marked. However, this Court would not adjudicate upon the same and it is for the Trial Court to consider the admissibility of said evidence at the time of final hearing of the matter. Yet another contention has been raised by Sri Prabhugouda B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to contend that sale deed dated 31.01.2005 which relates to the property purchased by the petitioner in the name of his wife/respondent which came to be marked as Ex.P.4, by relying upon the agreement to sell which had preceded said sale deed, it would not be proper to go into these aspects in as much as agreement to sell had not been produced before the trial Court and trial Court did not have benefit of considering this document which has been produced before the Court. On overall consideration of all these factors and the contentions raised, including evidence being relied upon by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that trial Judge had committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance in a sum of Rs.50,000/per month without analyzing, discussing and answering as to how the respondent/wife is without any income by recording a finding that she is unable to maintain herself from her available income despite there being evidence on record to show that wife has income. As to whether income earned by her was sufficient to maintain herself or it would be commensurate with the status she enjoyed in her marital home, requires to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. This fact has not been considered by the Trial Court by properly analyzing the evidence. In that view of the matter, trial Judge erred in passing the impugned order by awarding maintenance of Rs.50,000/per month to the respondent/wife. This Court would have examined as to whether any interim maintenance can be awarded, if there was no evidence about financial capacity of the respondent/wife or there being any evidence of she being a home maker and without any source of income. However, in the instant case, evidence on record would disclose that she is a B.E graduate and was working in many number of companies and she has also admitted that she is having bank accounts, which documents have not been produced and admitted in her cross examination that her HDFC mutual funds account is having balance of Rs.2,17,000/. At this stage, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence tendered, it cannot be construed or held that the respondent/wife is penniless or without any income to sustain herself. It would be appropriate for the trial Judge to examine all these aspects taking into consideration both the oral and documentary evidence and as such, impugned order cannot be sustained. Point No.1 formulated hereinabove is accordingly answered in favour of the writ Petitioner and against the respondent/wife. 7. It would be appropriate for the trial Judge to examine all these aspects taking into consideration both the oral and documentary evidence and as such, impugned order cannot be sustained. Point No.1 formulated hereinabove is accordingly answered in favour of the writ Petitioner and against the respondent/wife. 7. Learned Judge after Considering three basic ingredients namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss of injury has taken note of the fact that the respondent/wife while seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has also sought for grant of permanent alimony and it is in this background has considered the application for temporary injunction and has arrived at a conclusion that same deserves to be granted. In the event if petitioner were to succeed before the Trial Court and there is a decree for grant of permanent alimony, such decree should not become paper decree. It is in this background learned Trial Judge having noticed that though contention of the petitioner is to be accepted that the properties which have been indicated by the respondent/wife in her affidavit supporting the application is to be treated as joint family properties, the fact remains that writ petitioner herein is also having a share and to the extent of his share namely the flats are concerned, an order of injunction is required to be passed and accordingly, trial Judge has passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the husband from alienating or encumbering the said properties during the pendency of the proceedings, inasmuch as wife if entitled to permanent alimony and decree being passed, would also be entitled to seek charge over the properties belonging to her husband. It is this fact, which has weighed in the mind of the learned trial Judge to grant an order of injunction while considering the claim of wife, which order cannot be construed as one suffering from any legal infirmity or error having been committed by the trial Judge. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that point No.2 formulated hereinabove deserves to be answered in favour of the respondent/wife and against the petitioner/husband. Hence, the following ORDER : (1) Writ petition No.51465/2017 is hereby allowed in part and order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the V Addl. Prl. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that point No.2 formulated hereinabove deserves to be answered in favour of the respondent/wife and against the petitioner/husband. Hence, the following ORDER : (1) Writ petition No.51465/2017 is hereby allowed in part and order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru is hereby set aside, insofar as awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/per month and I.A. No.2 filed 21 by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act is restored to the file of trial Court for being adjudicated afresh keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. (2) The order passed in MC No.2030/2010 allowing IA No.19 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent/wife, is hereby affirmed. (3) W.P.No.54496/2017 is disposed of and it is ordered that the order of temporary injunction against alienation shall continue and as ordered on 15.12.2017 and it is also made clear that same shall not be construed as an order against enjoyment of the property by the petitioner/husband or proceeding with the construction already undertaken on said properties. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the financial capacity of both the parties, costs made easy.