The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a party is entitled to maintenance if the court finds the respondent's income and employment status to be ambiguous and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Hima Kohli, J. - The appellant/wife is aggrieved by an order dated 31.05.2018, passed by the learned Principal Judge (South), Family Courts, Saket, Delhi, whereunder an application moved by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in a pending divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband under Section 12(l)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed on the ground that she is in possession of a portion of the house owned by the parents of the respondent, for which she was paying rent @ Rs. 11,000/- per month till the parties had got married on 23.06.2015. Observing that since the appellant/wife was working in the past and had the capacity to pay rent of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the respondent''s mother prior to the marriage having taken place, she cannot claim that she is not in a position to maintain herself.

2. Notice was issued on the present appeal on 24.08.2018, returnable on 10.10.2018. On 10.10.2018, proxy counsel had appeared for Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Advocate for the respondent and sought time to place on record some relevant facts. Reply was directed to be filed by the respondent within four weeks and the appeal was adjourned to 24.01.2019. The record reveals that no reply has been filed by the respondent. However, learned counsel for the appellant states that he was served with a copy of the reply filed by the respondent in January, 2019.

3. On 24.01.2019, proxy counsel appearing for the counsel for the respondent had sought an adjournment and at her request, the appeal was adjourned to 25.02.2019. Again, a similar request for adjournment was made on behalf of the respondent on 25.02.2019 and the matter was adjourned to 09.04.2019. Thereafter, the appeal was taken up on 09.04.2019, 21.05.2019, 29.08.2019 and 19.11.2019. On the last two dates, a proxy counsel had appeared for the learned counsel for the respondent and had sought adjournments on the ground that the arguing counsel was unavailable. On 19.11.2019, while accommodating the request for an adjournment made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent, it was made clear that he would not be accommodated on the next date of hearing, i.e., today.

4. Today, the matter has been called twice but none had appeared on behalf of the respondent. In the post lunch session, Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate appears and states that Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Advocate is on his way to Delhi from Aligarh and requests that we await his presence. It is already 2:45 PM and there is no sign of learned counsel for the respondent. Though Mr.Harish Kumar, Advocate states that he is a junior associate in the office of Mr. Thakur, he has not come with the brief and on being requested to address us on the merits of the appeal, he states that he is not in a position to do so. We are thus left with a reply to the appeal that the respondent was permitted to file, which is also not on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has handed over a copy of the reply served on him by counsel for the respondent for our perusal.

5. Brief relevant facts of the case as set up by the appellant/wife are that her marriage was solemnised with the respondent/husband on 23.06.2015 and the same was registered with the Registrar of Marriage, District Ghaziabad, UP. In August, 2016, the respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of annulment claiming that his consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud. During the pendency of the said petition, on 27.2.2017, the appellant/wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming interim maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/- per month.

6. It is not out of place to mention here that before the marriage of the parties herein was solemnised, the appellant was in a live-in relationship with somebody and has borne a daughter from the said relationship, who in the year 2015, was nine years old. It is the appellant''s version that the respondent/husband was aware of the fact that she was in a live-in relation