A wife is entitled to maintenance according to her husband's financial status.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dt. 15-1-1985, in HMA 455/81. In the divorce petition filed by the respondent Mahavir Prasad Jain, petitioner Smt. Renu Jain has filed an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She had claimed Rs. 3000. 00 towards pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 5. 000. 00 as litigation expenses. She had claimed an additional sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 during pregnancy and Rs. 500. 00 for meeting the delivery expenses. The application was filed in March 1982 and after prolonged evidence and hearing the order was passed almost three years later. By that time the child was already two years old. The learned trial Judge had awarded pendente lite maintenance at Rs. 750. 00 per month w. e. f. 11-3-1982 and directed that the arrears of maintenance should be paid in four equal instalments. He also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 towards litigation expenses. The wife Renu Jain filed this civil revision complaining that the amount of Rs. 750. 00 as pendente lite maintenance was too inadequate for herself and the child. She has claimed that the income of the husband from the various businesses and properties must be around Rs. 15,000. 00 per month and she herself and the child are entitled to maintenance according to the financial status of the husband and his family. The husband did not pay the instalments as directed by the trial Court punctually and also repeatedly failed to make the payments of monthly instalments. He in fact filed a civil revision against the impugned order for reduction of the maintenance amount. The civil revision was not admitted by me.

( 2 ) ONE of the grounds raised by the wife in the present petition is that the husband should not be heard because of the repeated defaults in the payment of interim maintenance amount. Counsel for the wife has relied upon two decisions, 1975 Hindu Law Reports, Page 15 and 1977 Hindu Law Reports Page 334. However, after the directions were given by this Court, most of the payments of. the arrears of monthly instalments were made. I do not, therefore, think that the husband should be deprived of his right to address me in the civil revision filed against him here.

( 3 ) THE wife had claimed that the husband himelf along with his family owned five properties. They are :

1. DE-100, Tagore Garden, New Delhi (Kothi ). 2. Commercial Plot in Okhia, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. 3. Premises No. 9936 (Comml.) New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 4. House No. 48/56, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. 5. Premises No. 9775, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (Tenanted Premises ).

( 4 ) THE wife has also detailed the various sources of income and business of the petitioner and his family : They are :

1. Income from coal business at the premises No. 9936. 2. Income from fire-bricks and fire-clay in premises No. 9936. 3. Income from the Steel Rolling Mills at premises No. 9936. 4. Income from coal business at the premises 9975. 5. Rental Income of House No. 48/56, Anand Parbat, New Delhi.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the said properties and business, the wife has submitted that the respondent husband and his family are living a very affluent life. They have purchased property No. DE-100, Tagore Gardens, which is a double storeyed building, where the four members of the family stay. There are three telephones at premises No. DE-100, Tagore Gardens, No. 9936 at New Rohtak Road and No. 9775, New Rohtak Road, where the business is carried out. The respondent husband and all the family members are all income-tax payers. A commercial plot at Subzi Mandi, Okhla has also been purchased by the respondent husband. The residential property DE-100, Tagore Gardens and the commercial plot at Subzi Mandi, Okhla are purchased within the period of 3/4 years, between 1972 to 1976 by the respondent, whose value is easily over a million rupees.

( 6 ) AT the trial before the learned Judge the wife gave as many particulars as po