SEEMA Vs. SHYAM TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 1.10.2012 by virtue of which the petitioner/wife [in C.M. (M) No. 525/2013] has been granted an ad interim maintenance of Rs. 35,000/ - per month during the pendency of the divorce petition apart from litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 60,000/ -. The second petition [C.M. (M) No. 883/2013] has been filed by the respondent/husband challenging this very order. The wife wants enhancement while as the husband wants setting aside of the said order.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife as well as Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband on the merits of the matter.

(3.) MS . Meenakshi Lekhi, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband has tried to justify the ad interim maintenance order having been passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the cross - examination of the petitioner herself where she is purported to have admitted that her monthly expenses for running the household are to the tune of Rs. 35,000/ - to Rs. 40,000/ - and, therefore, it has been essentially contended that the grant of ad interim maintenance by the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly in line with the cross -examination of the petitioner though it was conducted after the impugned order having been passed. Though the respondent/husband has filed an independent petition for setting aside the impugned order but complete setting aside of the impugned order was never pressed by Ms. Lekhi.