The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the wife to interim maintenance based on the husband's income, the wife's medical condition, and the need for financial support.

1. This application has been filed by the wife for interim relief during the pendency of the Appeal filed by her against common Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court dated 9th June, 2009, whereby the marriage between the Applicant wife and Respondent husband solemnised on 28th March, 2002 came to be dissolved and the Petition filed by the Applicant wife for permanent alimony was dismissed.

2. The interim relief prayed in the application is for stay of operation of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 9th June, 2009 of dissolution of marriage and also of rejection of maintenance Petition. Further interim relief claimed in the application is for direction against the Respondent husband to pay sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - per month as maintenance to the applicant wife during the pendency of the Appeal with effect from August, 2005 and continue to pay the same every month.

3. We heard arguments of both sides on this application at length yesterday. As other miscellaneous matters were pending, we thought it appropriate to notify the matter for pronouncement of order for today at 3 p.m.... That position was made known to the Counsel appearing for all the parties. Besides, the matter has been notified on the daily board with remark that it is for pronouncement of order and will be taken up at 3 p.m.... However, when the matter is called out after the lunch break for pronouncement of order, no one is present on behalf of the Respondent husband.

4. Be that as it may, as aforesaid, we have already heard Counsel appearing for both the sides at length. During the hearing yesterday, with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the parties, we have waded through the relevant portion of the pleadings, evidence as also the Judgment, which is the subject matter of challenge in the pending Appeal. The Appeal is already admitted. Significantly, the Appeal was moved before this Court on 6th August, 2009 when the Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice on the Appeal had granted ad-interim stay to the execution and operation of the impugned order by which the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of Divorce. Now we are considering the application not only for confirmation of the said ad-interim order, but also for further relief to grant interim maintenance, as prayed by the Applicant wife in terms of prayer Clause (a) and (b) of the application.

5. Before we proceed to examine the controversy brought before us, we would briefly advert to the opinion recorded by the Family Court while answering the issue as to whether the applicant wife caused cruelty to the respondent husband. That can be discerned from paragraphs 28 to 44 of the impugned decision. In paragraph 28, the Court has summarised the allegations on the basis of which the Respondent husband had asked decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The same reads thus:

28. Then it is the contentions of the petitioner-husband that since after her marriage the respondent-wife was not behaving properly and she subjected him to harassment and torture. He also stated in his evidence on oath that he had married the respondent-wife on the assurance of the respondent-wife that she would look after his daughters but she had only taken care of her own daughter and was harassing and torturing his daughters. He has also narrated the instances of respondent-wife leaving the daughter at home and going for shopping and also that she had gone to her parental house at Mumbai on the eve of Diwali and celebrated first Diwali after marriage at her house at Mumbai. It was stated that she was even quarreling with him on petty issues to such an extent that he had to suffer from hyper tension and was required to be admitted in the hospital. He stated that whenever he used to be in abroad the respondent was not looking after his daughters and used to worried for them. He also stated that the respondent even as scolding him for not being so wealthy and always giving examples of her rich friend