Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 28.3.2003 passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by which the application of the petitioner (wife) seeking maintenance from her husband (respondent) was dismissed by the trial Court.
(2.) It appears from the impugned order itself that the trial Court relied upon the petitioner's admission that she is earning Rs. 3,500/- per month by serving in Gargi Devi Public School, Udaipur. The same fact is very clearly mentioned in the petitioner's application which is placed as Annexure-2 on record.
(3.) In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.3.2003 while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;