Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband, and interim maintenance need not be granted when both spouses are earning and have a good salary.

Jyoti Singh, J.

The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Family Court whereby an application filed by the appellant/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA') claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month has been dismissed.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.06.2012 at New Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties separated on 03.09.2012 when the respondent/husband left for Singapore. He is gainfully employed and living in Singapore ever since. Petition seeking a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) & (c) of HMA was filed by respondent/husband on 24.11.2012, which is pending. The appellant/wife had filed an application under Section 24 of HMA claiming maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. The learned Family Court vide the impugned order has dismissed the application of the appellant herein under Section 24 of the HMA for grant of maintenance pendente lite on the ground that the appellant/wife is highly qualified and has been working in reputed MNCs and is even presently employed, with a good salary.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the Family Court by contending that the Family Court has erred in not appreciating that the status of the parties is not similar or comparable, as the respondent/husband is earning more than INR 13 Lacs per month and living a luxurious life in Singapore while the appellant is living in India and is earning a gross salary of approximately Rs.1,25,000/- per month and her net salary is about Rs. 1 Lac per month. He submits that the Family Court has also failed to appreciate that while the respondent is living in a posh locality in Singapore, the appellant, prior to November, 2017 was living in a shared guest house and had to shift to a rented accommodation due to paucity of funds. It is also urged that the Family Court has ignored the immoveable properties including property at Sarita Vihar, owned by the respondent, while the appellant has no property or asset in her name.

It is further submitted that the Family Court has erred even on facts in holding that Sarita Vihar is not a lower locality or a slum area where the appellant cannot be expected to live as this is factually incorrect and the appellant is actually staying in a rented accommodation in Gurgaon and not at Sarita Vihar. In fact, it is vehemently contended that the appellant had never stayed in Sarita Vihar. The order of the Family Court is also assailed on the ground that the Family Court had erroneously believed the income affidavit of the husband in which it is mentioned that the expenditure of the respondent/husband is Rs. 11 Lacs per month as anyone who has an income of only Rs. 13 Lacs per month and an expenditure of Rs. 11 Lacs per month cannot have a saving of more than Rs. 2 Lacs per month. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent is a Bachelor of Engineering from BITS Pilani, MS from Stanford University, USA and MBA from INSEAD University, France. He is working in a very reputed multinational company at Singapore and at the time of marriage, he was earning Rs. 78 Lacs per annum in addition to perks and is presently also working with the said company in Singapore. It is also argued that even the father of the respondent is working as a General Manager with a Company and both parents are living in their own house in Sarita Vihar and are not dependent upon the respondent. The sum and substance of the argument is that the Family Court ought to have seen the huge gap in the incomes of the parties and awarded an interim maintenance as claimed by the appellant so that she could have a life style similar to the respondent.

5. Per contra the learned counsel for the responden