The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse's entitlement to maintenance is determined based on their respective earnings and earning capacity. The appellant's qualifications, employment history, and financial resources were crucial in the court's decision to deny the maintenance claim.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present Appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been filed on behalf of the appellant/husband against the impugned Order dated 19.04.2023 vide which the two Applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMA No. 1496/2018 and HMA No. 843/2018 claiming maintenance in the sum of Rs.88,000/- per month or one-time expense of Rs.4-5 lakhs as maintenance and litigation costs respectively on the ground that due to multiple litigations initiated by the respondent/wife against him, were dismissed.

2. The appellant/husband was married to the respondent/wife on 27.04.2016 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies.

3. Allegedly, the respondent/wife deserted the appellant/husband on 02.07.2016 i.e., after about two months of marriage.

4. The appellant/husband filed the petition bearing HMA No. 1496/2018 under Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce and the respondent/wife also filed petition bearing HMA No. 843/2022 under Section 13(1) (ia) read with Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce; both the petitions are pending trial.

5. During the pendency of the aforesaid two divorce petitions, the appellant sought maintenance in one case and litigation costs in the other HMA petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the respondent/wife.

6. Vide common Order dated 19.04.2023, the learned Principal Judge dismissed both the Applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the appellant/husband. Aggrieved, the present Appeals have been preferred by the appellant/husband.

7. The appellant/husband has asserted that till July, 2017, he was working with M/s. Fidelity Information Service (FIS) as IT Architect and he thereafter joined as Senior Architect with M/s. Sirion Labs. It is claimed by the appellant that due to multifarious litigations against him, he lost his job and thereafter, it became very difficult to get a new job for him, despite making all efforts. The appellant/husband using his contacts in United States of America (USA) to start a Recruitment Outsourcing Process Business in September, 2018, but the same also ended in a fiasco due to a false FIR No. 311/2017 filed by the respondent/wife in which the appellant/husband even remained in judicial custody.

8. The appellant/husband considered to start a new career in the field of law and thus, got himself admitted in Campus Law Centre, Delhi University in July, 2019 and upon completion, he enrolled himself as an Advocate in the year 2022. During that period of pursuing LLB, he had no source of income and was solely dependent on his parents. He thus, claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs.88,000/- per month in HMA No. 843/2022 and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in HMA No. 1496/2018.

9. The respondent/wife has refuted the claim of maintenance/litigation expense in her reply/response and claimed that the Applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are counter-blast of the petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV) and the criminal case against the appellant and his family members.

10. The respondent submits that apart from getting a salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month while working as IT Architect with M/s. Fidelity Information Services (FIS), he was having the income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the shares and bonds purchased from the market.

11. It is denied that the appellant lost his job as his physical and mental health got affected on account of the respondent's illicit relationship with Dr. Vijaydeep Siddharth.

12. It is submitted that the appellant and the respondent separated on 02.07.2016 and the appellant was employed till July, 2017 which is one year after the appellant and this itself contradicts the claim of mental harassment by the respondent. Further, the appellant cleared the entrance examination for getting admission in