The entitlement to separate residence and maintenance for a Hindu wife under Section 18 of the Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not in dispute, and the court has jurisdiction to pass the decree from the date of institution of the suit.

( 1 ) THE respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit in this Court against the appellant/defendant. The suit was filed under Section 18 of Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for maintenance and for separate residence. appellant/defendant is the husband of the respondsnt/plaintiff. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit, inter alia, on the averments that the appellant had abandoned and deserted her in July, 1992 because he developed intimate relations with a lady named Vanita Gupta with whom he subsequently got married to after conversion into Islam religion with the mala fide intention of marrying for the second time. He in fact married her later. It is not necessary to give other details. Purpose would be served by mentioning that after the trial of the suit, the learned Single Judge recorded the following conclusions and findings:

(1) The defendant in order to get married to Vanita Gupta converted himself into Islam religion. (2) The plaintiff possesses a degree of M. A. in History. She is a house wife and she has never worked. (3) The plaintiff has some financial support from her father and perhaps she has been able to maintain herself because of that financial support. From the defendant she was getting only Rs. 2,000. 00 per month. In kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumar, 1971 (2) SCR 672, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that "even if the wife received some amounts from her father regularly, it was a bounty and not her income. Therefore, it could not be taken into account under Section 23 (2) (d) of the Act in determining the amount of maintenance. (4) The defendant is a highly qualified businessman with BE and MBA degrees. He has a fairly large business. (5) According to the defendant he is paying rent of Rs. 4,000. 00per month for his apartment. (6) : The defendant is having a telephone at his residence. (7) The defendant has also purchased a Maruti Van and maintaining the same. (8) The defendant is also bearing expenses of education of two daughters of his second wife who are studying in the private English medium school. (9) The defendant is paying Rs. 2,000. 00per month as his share of the rent of the factory premises.

( 2 ) AFTER discussing the means and living style of the appellant, the learned single Judge passed a decree in favour of the respondent for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,500. 00per month and also allowed her Rs. 2,000. 00per month towards her separate residence i. e. a total sum of Rs. 7,500. 00 per month from the date of institution of the suit. The appellant had been paying a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00as interim maintenance per month to the respondent as per the interim order of the Court which amount appellant was entitled to deduct from the total balance amount to be paid to the respondent. An escalation clause is also provided as per which the maintenance and separate residence would be increased by 12 per cent after every three years from the date of the judgment and decree dated 4/09/1998. It is also ordered that if the amount is not paid within two months, the respondent shall be entitled to interest on mis amount at the rate of 18 per cent per annum after expiry of two months. The amount towards future maintenance and separate residence, as per the judgment and decree, was to be paid on or before 10th of every calendar month.

( 3 ) THIS appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment and decree.

( 4 ) IT is a matter of record that the appellant has not fully complied with the judgment and decree and only some payments on adhoc basis have been made during the pendency of this appeal. In the order dated 14/03/2000 passed in this appeal, it was noted that as per the decree a sum of Rs. 5,02,500. 00 was payable by the appellant to the respondent and another sum of Rs. 1,05,000. 00 had become due during the pendency of the appeal. As against that a sum of Rs. 1,34,000. 00 was paid during the pendency of the suit (at the rate of Rs. 2. 000. 00 per month by way of interim main