Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the wife / respondent and is directed against the Order No.39 dated April 21, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Fast Track Court, Barasat in Matrimonial Suit No.91 of 2006 thereby dismissing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife.
(2.) THE plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Matrimonial Suit No.91 of 2006 for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. THE wife / petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement by denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that admittedly, both the parties are financially solvent. Both the parties are qualified having the M.B.A. degree. The husband earns Rs.50,000/- per month from Reliance Life Insurance as Manager and the wife is the Senior Executive of the Tata Tele Services Ltd. drawing Rs.35,000/- per month. Thus, I find that both the parties are financially solvent. They need not depend on the other for survival. So, for the purpose of maintenance of the petitioner herself, she is not required any maintenance from her husband.
(3.) SO far as the flat is concerned, it is an admitted position that immediately after the marriage, both the parties jointly purchased a flat at Salt Lake at the cost of Rs.31 lakh and for that purpose a loan of Rs.31 lakh was taken from a bank jointly and the said amount is to be repaid by instalments. Admittedly, when the dispute between the parties cropped up, the husband took transfer of his posting from Calcutta to Bombay and at present, the husband is staying in Bombay for gains and the wife is occupying the said flat at Salt Lake. The wife has contended that since it is a joint purchase on taking a loan, the liability to make payment lies upon both the parties and as such, the husband is bound to contribute for payment of instalments.;