Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - This order shall dispose of two connected revision petitions bearing Nos.4007 of 2012 filed by Maneesh Mittal-husband and 4160 of 2012 filed by Smt. Brij Bala-wife, arising out of the common order and involving the similar questions of law and facts.

2. However, for convenience, the facts are being taken up from Civil Revision No. 4160 of 2012.

3. During the proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity, “the Act”), Smt. Brij Bala-petitioner (herein referred as, ‘the petitioner) moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself as well as her minor child namely Archit Mittal. She claimed that she is unable to maintain herself as well as minor son. Now she is working as Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Chandigarh with effect from February, 2012 and drawing salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Previously, she was working as Assistant Manager with Deutsche Bank, Ludhiana and was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. It has been further submitted that Maneesh Mittal-respondent (herein referred as, ‘the respondent’) is working as Senior Vice President in Barclays Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi and drawing salary to the tune of Rs.2 crores per annum. He drew bonus of Rs.65 lacs in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 each, besides salary and other emoluments. He has also additional income from various investments made in the share market and the property and rental income from one kanal house at Panchkula. Consequently, she has claimed a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs as litigation expenses and similar amount per month as maintenance for herself as well as minor child.

4. In reply, the respondent took some preliminary objections, inter alia, that the application has been filed on the basis of the false claim. The petitioner is drawing a salary of more than Rs.50,000/- per month and she is also in possession of Rs.71 lacs as paid to her by the respondent on 30.7.2009, to save the marriage of being disturbed but still he could not save. It was also settled at that time that in case they failed to make the settlement, in that eventuality, the sum of Rs.71 lacs paid to her would be treated as maintenance/ permanent alimony and parties would file the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The petitioner had joined the matrimonial house on 4.8.2009, however, she could not adjust with the respondent and left him on 28.9.2009 and started litigation with him. The relief available under Section 24 of the Act is not available to the petitioner as the said section is attracted to the woman who have no independent source of income for her support and meet the necessary expenses of the proceedings but the petitioner having sufficient is not entitled to any further sum. While admitting that Archit Mittal, their son, is living in the custody of the petitioner and that, he (the respondent) is working as Senior Vice President with Barclays Bank has stated that he was drawing salary of Rs.2 crore per annum, further stated that now he is drawing monthly salary of Rs.2,44,333.33. Actually, his total gross salary is Rs.5,40,416.57 per month, out of which a sum of Rs.1,49,822/- is deducted as tax at source besides other deductions and his carry home salary is Rs.3,61,274.67. His daughter is in his custody and she is studying in one of the best schools at Delhi. He has not received any bonus of Rs.65 lacs as alleged. The respondent has also to spend huge amount on gifs, concessions and expenses on lunch, dinner etc. on special functions. The respondent being the private banker with a multinational, his job is not secure specially in times of recession. The job being risky, he could be terminated at any time. Many people have lost their jobs on account of recession in the banks. The bonus in the private banking has been closed down and it also depends on the market conditions. The respondent has no bank balance and has to take care of his parent