The court reiterated that the conduct of the spouse claiming maintenance is not a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to or quantum of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The petitioner has assailed the order granting alimony pendente lite under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also an order by which the said order granting maintenance is directed to be implemented by way of deduction from the retiral benefit.

2. This matrimonial action is at the instance of the husband/petitioner praying for a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. In the said proceeding, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was taken out by the wife/opposite party in which it is contended that the marriage was solemnised according to the Hindu Ritual and Rites on 24.02.1973 and of the said wedlock, a son and a daughter is borne on 18.04.1975 and 16.11.1984 respectively. It is her further case that the petitioner left the matrimonial house of his own in the month of March 1995 and since, thereafter, he never contacted the wife or the children. It is specifically stated in the said application that the husband is an employee under the Principal Director of Audit (Central Government) and is drawing the gross salary of Rs. 25,000/-. She claims a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and her daughter as she has no independent source of income.

4. The petitioner, in his written objection, contended that the opposite party was convicted for committing an offence under Section 323 of IPC upon the petitioner and as such she is not entitled to maintenance. It is further contended that the petitioner has been forcibly driven out from his own house which he constructed by taking a loan from different corner. A writ petition was filed on the ground of police inaction in not rendering the adequate assistance to allow the petitioner to live in his own house which was disposed of with the direction upon the police authority to restore the possession of the petitioner in the said house.

5. The opposite party filed supplementary affidavit on 19th February, 2009 wherein she disclosed that prior to the instant matrimonial suit, an earlier matrimonial suit No.l10 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner where the court in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granted the alimony pendente lite @ 2000/- per month which was recovered by attachment of the petitioner’s salary. It is further contended that there is no tenant in the said premises. In an affidavit-in-opposition to the said supplementary affidavit, the husband says that the wife is collecting a rent from the tenant and she is also working as a medical assistant in a specialised Doctor’s chamber and getting a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month as salary/remuneration. He further says that the daughter is studying in M.A through correspondence course and is running a coaching centre and earned Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

6. On the basis of the above facts, the trial court found the net income of the husband at Rs.30,000 after compulsory deduction and awarded alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 8,000/- to the wife and unmarried daughter and in an addition thereto further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost. Such alimony was directed to be paid from the date of an application i.e. 30th June, 2008. The Trial Court further directed the petitioner to pay the arrear amount of maintenance within 15th of March, 2009 taking into account that the petitioner is going to be superannuated on the next month. The said order is assailed in C.O No.1919 of 2009 before this court.

7. In spite of the said order for payment of the arrear maintenance within 15th of March, 2009, the petitioner did not pay the same within the said stipulated period which constrained the opposite party to file an application for implementation of the said order which was eventually allowed, by the Trial Court vide Order No.15 dated 20.03.2009 with a direction upon the employer of the petitioner to deduct a sum of Rs.64,000/- from the retrial benefit of the petitioner as the petitioner is going to attend the age of superannuation on 31 March, 2009. The sa