Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    MAT - APP.No.91-2008 PDF

    Uploaded by

    daljitsodhi
    The appellant Meenakshi filed a maintenance application against the respondent Tilak Soni. The appellant produced a document (Mark X) purporting to show the respondent's income was Rs. 3.9 lacs per year. The respondent denied this document and claimed his salary was Rs. 15,000 per month. The court examined the respondent under oath and found his statement lacking credibility. The court ordered a police investigation to verify the authenticity of Mark X. The respondent then admitted Mark X was genuine and apologized. Based on the admitted income of Rs. 3.9 lacs per year in Mark X, the court increased the appellant's monthly maintenance from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MAT - APP.No.91-2008 PDF

    Uploaded by

    daljitsodhi
    41 views4 pages
    The appellant Meenakshi filed a maintenance application against the respondent Tilak Soni. The appellant produced a document (Mark X) purporting to show the respondent's income was Rs. 3.9 lacs per year. The respondent denied this document and claimed his salary was Rs. 15,000 per month. The court examined the respondent under oath and found his statement lacking credibility. The court ordered a police investigation to verify the authenticity of Mark X. The respondent then admitted Mark X was genuine and apologized. Based on the admitted income of Rs. 3.9 lacs per year in Mark X, the court increased the appellant's monthly maintenance from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000

    Original Title

    06042009_MAT.APP.No.91-2008.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant Meenakshi filed a maintenance application against the respondent Tilak Soni. The appellant produced a document (Mark X) purporting to show the respondent's income was Rs. 3.9 lacs per year. The respondent denied this document and claimed his salary was Rs. 15,000 per month. The court examined the respondent under oath and found his statement lacking credibility. The court ordered a police investigation to verify the authenticity of Mark X. The respondent then admitted Mark X was genuine and apologized. Based on the admitted income of Rs. 3.9 lacs per year in Mark X, the court increased the appellant's monthly maintenance from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    41 views4 pages

    MAT - APP.No.91-2008 PDF

    Uploaded by

    daljitsodhi
    The appellant Meenakshi filed a maintenance application against the respondent Tilak Soni. The appellant produced a document (Mark X) purporting to show the respondent's income was Rs. 3.9 lacs per year. The respondent denied this document and claimed his salary was Rs. 15,000 per month. The court examined the respondent under oath and found his statement lacking credibility. The court ordered a police investigation to verify the authenticity of Mark X. The respondent then admitted Mark X was genuine and apologized. Based on the admitted income of Rs. 3.9 lacs per year in Mark X, the court increased the appellant's monthly maintenance from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

    MAT.APP. 91/2008
    MEENAKSHI

    ..... Appellant
    Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao with
    Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Advs.

    versus
    TILAK SONI

    ..... Respondent
    Through: Mr. Tarun Goswami, Adv.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
    ORDER
    06.04.2009

    MAT.APP. 91/2008
    Be listed on 20th May, 2009.
    CM No.3090/2009
    1.

    The learned counsel for the appellant has produced a document Mark

    - X purporting to be the resume of the respondent which mentions the


    income of the respondent as Rs.3.9 lacs per annum.
    2.

    The respondent is present in person and he denies the said document.

    The respondent submits that his salary is merely Rs.15,000/- per month.
    3.

    In order to verify the authenticity of the said document, the statement

    of the respondent has been recorded under

    MAT.APP. 91/2008

    Page 1 of 4

    Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Though the respondent has denied the
    said document, but has admitted substantial contents of the said document

    to be correct except the paragraph relating to the income and degree of


    MBA mentioned therein.
    4.

    After examining the respondent on oath and also his demeanour, I am

    of the prima facie view that the respondent has made a false statement on
    oath and if the document is genuine, it would be there in the email account
    of the respondent as well as in the record of the companies, in which the
    respondent would have applied for job. I, therefore, direct the SHO, Tilak
    Marg to check the e-mail account of the respondent to ascertain whether
    the document Mark X is genuine.

    J.R. MIDHA, J

    APRIL 06, 2009


    Rb
    5.

    At this stage, the respondent admits the document Mark X and

    tenders unconditional apology for wrongly denying the same and prays for
    recalling of the order relating to the police investigation.
    MAT.APP. 91/2008

    6.

    Page 2 of 4

    Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I accept the

    apology of the respondent and recall the order relating to the police
    investigation.

    The respondent is warned to be truthful in future.

    The

    document Mark -X is exhibited as Ex.-X and the application is disposed of on


    the basis of admissions of the respondent in Ex.-X.

    7.

    In Ex.-X, the respondent has mentioned his salary to be Rs.3.9 lacs per

    annum which comes to Rs.32,500/- per month. The appellant has filed the
    present application for maintenance.

    The appellant was earlier getting

    maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month before the learned Trial Court. At that
    time, the respondents salary was taken by the learned Trial Court to be
    Rs.12,000/- per month. The salary of the respondent has now increased
    about three times.
    8.

    The maintenance of the appellant is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month

    w.e.f. the date of filing of this appeal upto the date and at Rs.8,000/- from
    the date of this order till the disposal of the appeal.

    The respondent is

    directed to pay the whole arrears of the maintenance at the aforesaid rate
    within 40 days and continue to pay the future maintenance at the rate of
    Rs.8,000/- by the 7th of each English calender month.

    MAT.APP. 91/2008

    Page 3 of 4

    9.

    CM No. 3090/2009 is disposed of.

    10.

    Copy of this order be given Dasti to learned counsel for both the

    parties.

    J.R. MIDHA, J
    APRIL 06, 2009
    rb

    MAT.APP. 91/2008

    Page 4 of 4

    You might also like