- (1.) THE present appeal arises out of the order dated 10.4.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui,(hereinafter referred to as the lower court) in Misc.Application No. 52/2009, whereby the lower court has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to the respondent as the maintenance in the application filed by the respondent- applicant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act(hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
(2.) THE present appellant happens to be the husband of the respondent. It appears that the appellant had filed an application under Section 9 of the said Act and the respondent had filed an application under Section 24 of the said Act seeking maintenance. THE lower court vide the impugned order has awarded Rs. 5,000/- p.m., towards the maintenance to the respondent to be payable by the appellant. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a poor person and can not afford to pay maintenance as awarded by the lower court. He also submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to keep the respondent with him but the respondent is not ready to stay with the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the respondent is also earning and the amount awarded is on a very higher side. However, the learned counsel for the respondent drawing the attention of the Court to the copy of the matrimonial advertisement published in the news paper allegedly by the appellant, submitted that the income of the appellant has been shown as Rs. 50,000/- p.m. in the said advertisement. He also submitted that the appellant has big stone industries and has also his own web-site, hence the amount awarded by the lower court is just and proper. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the lower court, it transpires that the lower court has taken into consideration the evidence on record and has observed that there was no evidence adduced by the appellant that the respondent was serving in any school or institution, and on the contrary it was proved by the respondent that the appellant was the owner of one 'Ganpati Industry' and was carrying on the business of stones. The lower court after, considering the status and income of the appellant has awarded maintenance to the respondent, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper. It is needless to say that the respondent-wife is entitled to live with the same status and style as her husband i.e. the appellant. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the lower court. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;