earlier worked as Consultant of Vidya Global School, Meerut, U.P. but way back in 2015 itself he resigned the said job and at present he is working as an educational consultant in Delhi NCR, which is a private job and earning less than Rs.20,000/- p.m. Therefore, it is preposterous on the part of the respondent to contend he has been working as Principal in an international school at Meerut and getting Rs.2,40,000/- p.m. He has no other properties. The trial Court has not properly appreciated this fact. Learned counsel would further argue that so far as the respondent/petitioner is concerned, she has vast properties i.e., Ac.3.50 cents of coconut garden in Vanapalli village, Kothapet mandal, East Godavari district worth Rs.2,00,00,000/-, which she acquired under 6 documents, and she is getting an income of Rs.50,000/- p.m. Further, the respondent got house property in Kakinada and getting monthly rental of Rs.10,000/-, besides she has been working as teacher in a private convent at Kakinada and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. towards salary. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner produced certain property documents and fixed deposit receipts showing the financial capacity of the respondent. However, the trial Court has not taken them into consideration. Therefore, the order is liable to be set-aside.
