The judgment established the principle that the wife's right of residence in the matrimonial home should not unduly restrict the husband's rights, and that the husband must provide alternative accommodation for the wife if the matrimonial home is sold.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

.1. The respondent / wife filed a suit under Section 18, 23 and 28 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 against the appellant / husband seeking grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month with the declaration to have a right of residence in her matrimonial home on the first floor of D - 291, Defence Colony, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as, the suit property ) as also for restraining the appellant from dispossessing her from the said premises. The respondent also filed an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month as well as for interim relief in respect of the suit property. The suit and the interim applications were contested by the appellant. In terms of the impugned order dated 02.07.2007 apart from the admitted rental income of Rs. 22,500/- per month of the respondent, the appellant was directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 22,500/- per month as interim maintenance. A further direction was issued restraining the appellant from alienating or selling off his portion of the suit property though the order would not stand in the way of partition of the said property by metes and bounds in view of pendency of the partition suit between the appellant and his brother.

2. The appellant has impugned this order by filing the present appeal. The respondent has filed crossobjections. In the cross-objections, the respondent has sought to set up a case that her right of residence in the matrimonial home had been made contingent and subordinate to the appellants right to affect partition of the suit property.

3. The dispute is an unfortunate one where the parties are well educated and have settled children, but do not seem to be able to live together. The appellant is stated to be 60 years of age while the respondent is 54 years old.

4. It is in view thereof that right from the inception of the appeal in the year 2007 itself, various Benches made an endeavour to see that an overall settlement could be arrived at. The matter was also referred for mediation. However, none of the proceedings for settlement proved to be successful. We may note that even after the mediation proceedings failed, endeavour was made for settlement, but even the same proved to be fruitless. On the other hand, we found on 04.05.2009 that in the middle of the process of an endeavour for settlement, there was a change of counsel by the respondent. We did not appreciate such conduct of the respondent and, therefore, found it appropriate to direct that the earlier counsel should also remain present, as he was in the know of what endeavour was made for settlement. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 13.05.2009, the earlier counsel appeared and the new counsel, who had been engaged, sought to be recused. Since no settlement was possible, we proceeded to hear the matter as the earlier counsel stated he would make the submissions. On the learned senior counsel for the appellant concluding his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent again sought one days accommodation to make his submissions with the objective of finding out if some settlement was possible. However, on 14.05.2009, we again found that the respondent was only vacillating and prevaricating and, thus, no settlement was possible. We, thus, asked the counsel for the respondent to proceed with the arguments. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent wanted to engage a Senior Advocate. We declined such a request for adjournment in the middle of the hearing as we considered the request inappropriate and only a dilatory tactic, which had resulted in the pendency of the appeal already for two years and reserved the judgment.

.5. We have perused the pleadings and considered the submissions of the parties. At this interim stage, there are only two aspects, which require consideration:

.(i) the extent of maintenance, which should be paid to the respondent to maintain her lifestyle in the manner she