The court's decision was based on the application of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the consideration of the parties' income, expenses, and health issues in determining the maintenance amount.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

This order will dispose of the petitioner's application for ad-interim maintenance, sought against the respondent, her husband. She has sued the latter for a decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-. The parties are hereafter referred to as "the wife" and "the husband", respectively. The wife also claims a decree for of Rs. 12,75,000/-.

2. Briefly, the pleadings in this case disclose that the marriage between the two contesting parties took place on 28th October, 2007, at Baroda. The parties came across each others matrimonial advertisement in the portal "Shaadi.com" and apparently met for the first time on 9th September, 2007. It is submitted that the husband was working in a firm known as "Cross Beam", and just before the marriage, switched over his job to "Nevis Network". It is submitted that his annual income, according to his representation, in Cross Beam was of Rs. 28,000,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs) and he told the wife that the annual income in Nevis Network was of Rs. 4000,000/- (Rupees forty lakh). The wife claims that the husband, and his relatives were rude and offensive in their behaviour towards her from the beginning of the marriage, and narrates several instances of such mis-behaviour. It is also alleged that she used to be routinely taunted and taken to task for not ensuring sufficient dowry; and insinuations were levelled against her. The wife, in her petition, highlights instances where the husband is alleged to have slighted her, and perpetuated acts of verbal cruelty on her. These include threatening to leave her on a highway on a New Year's Eve, taunts and refusal to take care of her during pregnancy, unsupportive and insensitive behaviour after she underwent an abortion, and insinuations of his involvement with other women, to her (the wife). She also alleges that the husband humiliated and insulted her at various places, including in her matrimonial home, at Vasant Vihar, in New Delhi. According to her, the husband even displayed violent behaviour in public, and tried to throttle her. She also alleges that the respondent made her spend money on various occasions, without prior information. She alleges acts of further cruelty, including kicking and slapping by the husband, on 15th October, 2008, which compelled her to come away to Delhi and start living with her parents from the next day onwards.

3. The wife alleges that she is not employed, and without a source of income. She is at present enrolled as a regular student in the University of Derby, UK, where she is pursuing her MA in Human Resource Management. It is alleged that she is unable to afford her education and has borrowed of Rs. 750,000/- from HDFC Bank, Green Park, New Delhi. It is alleged that the entire amount has been spent on enrolment, fees etc. It is submitted that her living expenses total of Rs. 2,00,000/- for six months and the cost of living, excluding cost of accommodation is about of Rs. 74,000/- per month. She is however, restricting her claim to of Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is submitted that the husband is an MBA from Queensland University, Australia, enjoys high status and is leading a lavish life style. It is submitted that his annual income is of Rs. 40,00,000/-; that he travels always by air, and stays in expensive five star hotels. It is alleged that he also owns a house in Wadala (East) Mumbai, the cost of which is more than of Rs. 1 crore. He has fixed deposits to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs to his credit, and owns shares and securities worth more than of Rs. 35 lakhs. The wife claims that she is at present being maintained by her family, including her parents even though the husband has the responsibility of doing so.

4. The husband, in his written statement, and reply to the application for ad-interim order of maintenance, denies all allegations of cruelty and misbehaviour levelled against him by the wife. He submits that the latter (i.e. the wife) is guilty of suppressing materia