A division bench of Delhi High Court caught a liar in a HMA 24 proceeding.
From Para 6,
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant was M. Phil at the time of her marriage and was pursuing Ph.D which she has completed and is now having the qualification of Ph.D (Management) with professional qualification in Computers. While on the other hand the respondent is a simple graduate. It is also not denied that appellant was working at the time of her marriage at a Diamond Jewellery Showroom and was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. She had left her job since she was unable to attend her office since 22.05.2015.
7. From the submissions it is evident that not only is the appellant highly qualified but had been working even at the time of her marriage.
From Para 8,
Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 20238. The second aspect of significance is that the respondent had claimed that the appellant is working in the office of M.P. Udit Raj in Connaught Place and her claim that she is unemployed, is incorrect. In support of his assertions he had relied upon a CD showing the appellant working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and also marking her attendance in the Register. The appellant who had initially taken a stand that she was not working, when confronted with this CD, gave an explanation that she has a friend working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and at times when she goes to visit her friend, she also looks after the office work.
Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine Del. 5624]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116590874/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/650084c876bd087c6be01592
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/5125330-niharika-ghosh-niharika-kundu
Index of Maintenance Orders under HMA here.