JUDGMENT :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. The matter comes up on two applications (IA Nos. 9566/18 and 1/19) preferred by the respondent-Neha Jain under Section 24of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"). By way of the first application (IA No. 9566/18) filed on 26.2.18, directions are sought to the appellant to pay the respondent maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs. 1 lac per month. The second application (IA No. 1/19) is filed on 2.7.19, seeking directions to the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 5 lacs for her treatment of brain-tumor.

2. The facts relevant are that a petition preferred by the appellant (husband) under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the respondent (wife) seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, which stood dismissed by the Family Court, Jhunjhunu, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.17 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 198/17. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred present appeal before this Court on 11.1.18.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite, a sum of Rs. 1 lac and litigation expenses Rs. 2 lacs in lump sum. It is averred in the application that the appellant is employed in Bharti Airtel Limited DTH as Zonal Sales Manager and his annual income by salary is Rs. 20 lacs per annum. Besides, he is availing HRA, telephone expenses, petrol charges, medical expenses, health insurance, incentive, bonus etc. from the said company @. Rs. 4 lacs per annum. He also owns six flats in Jaipur; the rental income whereof is more than Rs. 1 lac per month. It is further averred by the respondent that the appellant is maintaining two luxury cars and has membership of two prestigious clubs in Jaipur.

4. By way of second application, the respondent has claimed Rs. 5 lacs for her treatment inasmuch as, she has suffered brain tumor and had to undergo a major surgery. For surgery of the brain tumor, the respondent was admitted and undergone surgery in Fortis Escort Hospital, Jaipur on 27.5.19 and incurred expenditure a sum of Rs. 2,38,173/- towards the medical and hospital expenses and Rs. 1 lac on account of the doctors professional fee.

5. The appellant has filed a reply to the application, taking the stand that he is already paying a sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance pursuant to order dated 28.2.19 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act of 2005') and therefore, he is not liable to pay any additional amount of maintenance or the medical expenses as claimed by the respondent. According to the appellant, till the filing of the reply to the application on 25.7.19, an amount of Rs. 11,95,000/- has already been paid by him to the respondent against the amount of maintenance as directed by the Court in proceedings under the Act of 2005.

6. On 18.5.18, a coordinate Bench of this Court while deferring the hearing on application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, directed both the parties to file affidavits in proforma settled by Delhi High Court in the decision dated 29.5.17 in FAO No. 369/1996-Kusum Sharma vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma.

7. In compliance of the directions, the appellant and the respondent both filed their respective affidavits, setting out details in prescribed proforma alongwith documents in support thereof. The respondent also filed objections to the affidavit filed by the appellant. Thereafter, on 26.11.18, taking into consideration, the voluminous documents produced on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order in the following terms:

"1. Parties have filed voluminous documents to show the income of the appellant and the respondent. Parties agree that the documents relied upon by them would be produced by them for purposes of aud