( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) ANILKUMAR (. . . . . .) (husband) filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 175 of 1986 in the Court of the Assistant Judge, Surat for obtaining decree of dissolution of his marriage with the opponent Sunita (. . . . . .) (wife) on the ground that his wife treated him with cruelty, as per the ground available under S. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the allegations that the respondent was having attacks of fit, she used to pick up quarrels frequently, she attempted to commit suicide and she filed false complaints. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 9-8-1989 decreed the husbands petition and granted the prayer of divorce as prayed for by him declaring that the marriage of the parties to that petition would stand dissolved.

( 3 ) SINCE the wife prayed for permanent alimony, the learned trial Judge also granted permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 p. m. till she would remarry. The wife carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Surat by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1989. The learned Joint District Judge by his consolidated judgment and decree dated 27-6-1991 allowed the wifes Regular civil Appeal No. 48 of 1989 and set aside the decree for divorce passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surat in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 175 of 1989 filed by the husband. He has, therefore, challenged such dismissal of his divorce petition in Second Appeal No. 100 of 1992 under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court.

( 4 ) IT is undisputed that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised at Agra according to Hindu rites on 18-2-1980 and that both the parties belong to Hindu Agrawal caste. They have two sons from the wed-lock, the elder one Ankur @ Bunty, born on 21-3-1981 and the younger one Monty, born on 20- 11-1983. When the petition for divorce was filed on or around 24-11-1986 the children were respectively aged around 5 years and 3 years.

( 5 ) ALTHOUGH all the proceedings have been heard together before this Court, it would be just and proper to deal with application for interim alimony in the first instance. INTERIM ALIMONY [civil Appeal No. 169 of 1993 in Second Appeal No. 100 of 1992]

( 6 ) THIS civil application has been moved by the respondent for obtaining interim alimony of Rs. 50,000. 00 per month towards her maintenance, enjoyment of life and other expenditure and Rs. 50,000. 00 per month towards the maintenance, education and other expenditure for her minor son Monty as well as for expenses in the sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 by way of cost of this litigation. For the purpose of this application the respondent has relied upon the facts narrated in the main petition which interalia indicate that she was driven out of her matrimonial home on and from 6-6- 1986 and she and her minor son Monty have been residing with her father at Bombay and have been dependent upon her father for their maintenance. As against this, the petitioner has been stated to be coming from an extremely well to do joint family of Marwadi community and has been one of the upper most families in the city of surat. In order to show that the petitioner has been financially extremely effluent, details of 17 properties and 16 businesses in which the petitioner has been interested have been set out. According to her the petitioner own 5 motor cars, a Tempo motor cycle and has large amount of cash, bank balance and movables including jewellery. He had disclosed an income of Rs. 22. 50 lacs as his own individual income out of total disclosure of Rs. 70 lacs of family income during an income-tax raid in the year 1989. According to the letter addressed by the petitioner to the income- tax authorities he admitted that gross profit of the petitioner from M/s. Monty international was Rs. 3,71,296. 05 in 1987-88, Rs. 2,61,282. 06 in 1988-89 and Rs. 5,74,417. 63 in 1989-90. Besides, a total sum of Rs. 70,039. 00 was invested in various companie