YOGESH KUMAR Vs. NEETU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby on an application filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act), learned matrimonial Court while allowing the said application has granted ad interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of application. The wife has further been granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed a petition before the matrimonial Court for dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Act. While the said petition was pending before the matrimonial Court, the respondent-wife had moved the aforesaid application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matrimonial Court has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts. The respondent-wife is well educated and possesses a master's degree in science and is a qualified B.Ed teacher. She is presently employed in West Academy, Pataudi, Gurgaon as a PGT teacher of Biology w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and is drawing a handsome salary of Rs. 40,530/- per month. Therefore, she is able to maintain herself. However, learned matrimonial Court has not taken into consideration this fact. Further, the respondent-wife has also been selected as a PGT Biology lecturer by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Therefore, it cannot be said that she has no source to maintain herself. The provisions of Section 24 of the Act can be invoked only when the wife is unable to maintain herself. The respondent-wife being well placed and well employed is not entitled to interim maintenance. However, the impugned order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned matrimonial Court is based on no reasons and has erroneously been passed, ignoring the income of the respondent-wife, whereas the petitioner-husband is not financially well off.