JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.05.2018 whereby the appellate court set aside the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the trial court. The Trial Court had directed that the applications filed by both the parties under Section 25 (2) of the Domestic Violence Act shall be taken up for consideration after parties lead evidence.

2. The petitioner was granted maintenance by order dated 24.09.2009 in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The order of maintenance was challenged by the respondent before the High Court. The order was challenged, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner was qualified and was not working and as such was disentitled to maintenance. Before the High Court, respondent stated that respondent would be in a position to secure an employment for the petitioner.

3. In view of the submissions made by the respondent that he shall secure a job for the petitioner, the High Court by order dated 29.11.2010 in Crl. Rev. P. 241/2010 directed as under:-

“The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was well qualified and she was M.A B.Ed and there was lot of posts of teachers lying vacant and respondent was entitled to a job but she was delibe