( 1 ) SINCE both these petitioners are directed against the order dated 6th of July 2000 made in M. C. No. 318 of 1998, on the file of the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City, these petitions are heard together and though they are listed for preliminary hearing in 'b Group', with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 25193/2000 is the wife of the respondent in the said writ petition. In Writ Petition No. 25830/2000, the petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. A copy of the order made by the Family Court which is impugned is produced as Annexure-E to Writ Petition No. 25193/2000. The parties to these petitions will hereinafter be referred to as the wife and the husband.

( 3 ) THE few facts that may be relevant for disposal of these petitions, may be stated as hereunder : (a) The wife had filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery, cruelty and the husband is suffering from mental illness under S. 13 (1) (i), (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Age. During the pendency of the petition filed seeking divorce, the wife had also filed an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from 9th of November 1996 up to the date of the filing of the petition and also to continue to pay the maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings; and also for payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards the litigation expenses. It is her case that due to physical and mental cruelty and harassment meted out by the husband, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter on 9th of November 1996 and returned to her mother's home; and the sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month earned by her by way of part time employment is insufficient to meet her expenses and the expenses of her minor daughter. It is her further case that her husband is a businessman and a very rich person and owns number of properties in Bangalore and in Delhi and his monthly earning from the properties and the business is more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. (b) The husband resisted the claim of the wife for grant of interim maintenance. In the objections filed, he contended that the prayer of the wife for grant of interim maintenance should be deferred till the application filed by the husband under S. 12 of the Family Courts Act seeking for a direction to appoint an independent reputed expert Psychiatrist to examine the wife and husband is considered and also till the evidence is recorded in the case, and the wife is subjected to cross-examination. He also disputed the claim of the wife with regard to his income and contended that since the wife has sufficient income of her own, she is not entitled for award of any maintenance. (c) The Family Court, in the impugned order, after substantial progress was made in recording the evidence in the case, granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards interim maintenance to the wife from the date of the order and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses. While fixing the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, the Family Court has taken into account the income of the wife, the income of the husband, their status and also the expenses the wife is required to incur at that stage to maintain her minor daughter. (d) The wife has challenged the order passed by the Family Court to the extent it has negatived her claim for grant of maintenance from the date of the application filed seeking interim maintenance till the date of the order; and the husband has challenged the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to the wife.

( 4 ) MISS M. Birdy Aiyappa, learned counsel appearing for M/s Sreevatsa Associates for the wife, challenging the correctness of the order impugned to the extent it has rejected the claim of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document