(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13. 2. 1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Vide this order, the Court had fixed interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month for the petitioner and had allowed litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,000/ -. The only record before the Trial Court was an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and reply thereto filed by the respondent.
(3.) VARIOUS judgments have taken the view that the wife would even be entitled to l/3rd of the salary/income of the husband, though no such hard and fast rule can be laid down, but it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Usha v. Sudhir Kumar, reported as, (1974) 76 PLR 195, and Smt. Renu Jain v. Mahavir Prashad Jain, AIR 1987 Delhi 43.