(1.) Civil Revision Application No. 619/2000 is field by the petitioner-husband challenging the order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Bhuj below Application Exh. 5 in HMP No. 41/99 dated 24.4.2002 on several grounds and while considering the challenge, the High Court had issued rule, which was made returnable within six weeks and by way of interim relief, operation of the order was stayed. Civil Revision Application No. 800/2000 is filed by the petitioner-wife for modification of the above order as according to her that the order of maintenance is required to be enhanced as prayed for in the application and as found from the order dated 28.8.2000 while considering the fact that in Civil Revision Application No. 619/2000 the Court has already issued rule, the Court has issued rule in Civil Revision Application No. 800/2000 and ordered to hear the same alongwith Civil Revision Application No. 619/2000, which is filed by the husband, wherein he has challenged the order passed by the learned trial Judge in respect of fixing the amount of maintenance granted in favour of wife and the said order was also challenged at the nstance of the wife in Civil Revision Application No. 800/2000 wherein according to ner the order passed by the learned trial Judge fixing the maintenance is required to be modified and she is entitled for enhancement of the maintenance.
(2.) . Though rule was made returnable within six weeks and the Court has stayed the mpugned order, Revision Applications had remained pending and accordingly a equest was made by Mr. Mankad for early date of hearing and accordingly this Court as considered the submission made before me and fixed both the Revision Applications and accordingly after considering the submissions made before me, I am nclined to dispose of both the Revision Applications by a common order.
(3.) . During hearing Mr. Mankad, appearing for the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 800/2000 and while opposing the Revision Application filed by the spondent-husband being Civil Revision Application No. 619/2000, has contended at the learned trial Judge though had granted interim application for maintenance ader Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, had not properly considered the evidence on he point of income and the learned trial Judge has accordingly while deciding the ipplication partly allowed the same by granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs. 500/- towards the costs of defending the proceedings. Mr. Mankad has while arguing the matter taken me through the application filed by the wife wherein according to her she is entitled for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month for her maintenance as well as claimed Rs. 10,000/- to meet the expenses of the proceedings. As found from the application being HMP No. 41/99, wherein the petition for restitution of conjugal right against the husband was filed and during the pendency of the said proceedings, she claiaimed interim maintenance. According to her, her husband is serving as a senior operator in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. (IFFCO) and he is getting a handsome salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is her say that her husband is getting Rs. 600/- as over time pay per shift and the minor child Ria aged about 4 years to be maintained by her. It is also the case of the petitioner-wife that she is serving in D.V. High School, at Anjar and getting Rs. 4,488/- on hand after necessary deduction and she stays with her mother and brother in Bhuj and she is required to spent substantial amount by way of travelling to attend the service at Anjar and that she has no other dependent income sufficient for her support .as well as for maintenance of minor female child Ria and she has claimed that she may be awarded Rs. 12,000/- for their maintenance and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the expenses of the proceedings. The application was supported with an affidavit of the petitioner Smt. Urvashi dated 5.11.1999.