Heard learned advocates for the parties.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that awarding Rs.15000/- in all to the respondent-wife and minor per month by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vadodara is against the evidence on record and known source of income of the petitioner by producing relevant assessment order, acknowledgment of the Income Tax return etc. Against counter to the above submissions, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the petitioner is in arrears of the amount of maintenance so awarded.
Prima facie on perusal of the record and principle applied by leaned Additional Judge, Family Court in the impugned order is the order which relates back to decision of privy council in the case of T.S. Murugesam Pilla vs. Ghana Sambandha Pandara Sanaddi and Ors. [ AIR 1917 Privy Council page 6 and 8] about a practice prevailing amongst litigants in India about not disclosing and lying about the information pertaining to important documents in possession.
In the facts of this case all relevant information were discussed by the petitioner and would not be contradictory by the respondent.
In the above circumstances, when the petitioner deposits Rs.25,000/- with the Family Court, Vadodara on or before 17th February, 2012, the impugned order shall remain stayed till then.
Stand over to 17.2.2012.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top