JUDGMENT : HARISH TANDON, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Midnapore in Matrimonial Suit No. 673 of 2015 dismissing an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Rights and Customs and was duly consummated. A minor child was born of the wedlock and it is alleged by the wife/petitioner that she was tortured and assaulted on the demand of dowry. The opposite party filed the said Matrimonial Suit for dissolution of marriage by divorce inter-alia on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 2. The wife/petitioner took out an application under section 24 of the said Act claiming a limine pendente lite not only for herself but also for the minor child together with the litigation cost. It is alleged in the said application that the petitioner has no independent income and is passing her days along with her son in her father's house. It is further alleged that the petitioner has a substantial income of about Rs. 20,000/- per month from various sources and therefore maintenance should be awarded to her to the tune of Rs. 8000/- inclusive of the maintenance for minor son and the litigation cost. 3. The husband/opposite party averred in the opposition which this Court feels needs elaborate narration. It is alleged that the wife/petitioner used to misbehave with the husband and the family members all along even after the delivery of the child. The wife/petitioner pressurized the opposite party to live separately from his parents and because of the constant pressure being put on him he started living in one rented house near the office of the father of the wife/petitioner. Suddenly, the wife/petitioner left the home along with the son on 15.02.2008 and did not return till the month of April, 2012. Several attempts were made during the aforesaid period to take the wife/petitioner back to the matrimonial house but the husband/opposite party was always treated badly and was further threatened that in the event he comes to her house, an appropriate criminal proceeding would be initiated against him. 4. Subsequently, a settlement was sought to be entered into by intervention of the local people including the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and it was decided that the husband would pay a lump sum of Rs. 4. Subsequently, a settlement was sought to be entered into by intervention of the local people including the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and it was decided that the husband would pay a lump sum of Rs. 9 Lacs to the wife/petitioner for herself and for the minor child. According to the husband/opposite party, a sum of Rs. 9 Lacs was paid on diverse dates and it was further agreed that she would agree for a mutual divorce. Later on she did not agree for mutual divorce yet received the said sum of Rs. 9 Lacs which compelled the petitioner to file the said suit for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court wrongly rejected the said application for maintenance as the wife has got a sum of Rs. 9 Lacs. The aforesaid facts would appear from the impugned order as well and the Trial Court found that the money which she received is sufficient enough to cater her daily needs. 6. Indubitable, the wife is claiming maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month for herself and a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the minor child. There is no whisper in the application under section 24 of the said Act filed by the wife about such settlement and receiving of a sum of Rs. 9 Lacs. The application containing six paragraphs are silent on the above aspect. 7. The aforesaid facts had been disclosed in the written objection filed by the husband/opposite party. The wife must disclose all the facts as the suppression is always viewed seriously. There is no whisper in the application that the wife has already received a sum of Rs. 9 Lacs from the husband/opposite party nor there is any averment as to the appropriation thereof. The wife herself stated in the application that the income of the husband is around Rs. 20,000/- per month and claimed maintenance for herself and the minor son at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 9 Lacs from the husband/opposite party nor there is any averment as to the appropriation thereof. The wife herself stated in the application that the income of the husband is around Rs. 20,000/- per month and claimed maintenance for herself and the minor son at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 9 Lacs was paid far back in the year 2012 and naturally if the said amount is invested in a short term fix deposit then it would augment an income, which, in my opinion, would be sufficient enough to cater her needs and the needs of her minor son, more particularly, the amount of maintenance claimed by her in the said application. Though the Court rejected the said application which ought not to have been done but this Court finds that the amount which she is accepted to receive from investing the said sum is sufficient enough for her maintenance and the maintenance of the minor son. 8. The conduct of the wife in suppressing the material fact is also one of the relevant considerations as the person who does come before the Court with clean hand does not deserve any equity in her favour. This Court, therefore, modifies the impugned order to the extent that the application for maintenance shall be treated to have been disposed of as the income derived from the sum already paid to her is receivable for her maintenance and no further amount is to be paid to the wife/petitioner. 9. With these modifications, the revisional application is disposed of. No order as to costs.