The main legal point established is that a spouse's entitlement to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is contingent upon their lack of independent income, and expedited proceedings may be directed for the principal suit under Section 13.

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

This is a wife's appeal, challenging the order dated 23.07.2016, passed by the Family Court, Dehradun, whereby her application filed under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, in Suit No.932 of 2014, for dissolution of marriage has been rejected, and the case has been directed to be fixed for filing of written statement and framing of issues.

2. The respondent herein on 01.12.2014, had instituted a suit being Suit No.392 of 2014, for dissolution of marriage, which is said to have been solemnized on 09.11.2008. The said marriage was claimed to have been registered before the Registrar of Marriages, although the propriety of the registration has been questioned by the respondent (husband). The misunderstanding between the parties to the Section 13 proceedings has erupted more when according to the husband, the appellant before this Court has instituted the proceedings by lodging the FIR under Section 498(A), 504, 506 of IPC in Cantt Thana. Subsequently, in collusion with the police officials she also falsely got the husband robed in the proceedings under Section 376, with a sole intention to harass the family and entrapped them in criminal cases and also to malign the social image of the family.

3. It is the case of the husband that the learned Sessions Court after finding that the criminal allegations as leveled under Section 498A, 504, 506, 376, being based on false allegations, dismissed the proceedings and the respondent was acquitted honourably. The said issue is pending consideration in an appeal before this Court.

4. Taking the basis that the registration of marriage was fraudulently obtained the respondent (husband) had filed the proceedings under Section 467, 468, but, however, in the said case the final report was submitted against which a complaint/objection has been filed by the appellant. The appellant in accordance with the respondent is in the habit of lodging frivolous criminal complaints, against the respondent, as well as the family members, simply for the purposes to extract money. Due to inevitable circumstances as narrated in the plaint, the respondent was forced to institute the proceedings for dissolution of marriage by filing a petition under Section 13 on 01.02.2014.

5. During the pendency of the principal proceedings under Section 13, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 for seeking an interim maintenance pendente lite, to the tune of Rs. 71,000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance. The said application under Section 24, was opposed by the husband contending that the basis of claim for grant of pendente lite maintenance is absolutely untenable, for the reason, in view of the language used under Section 24, either of the spouse has to establish their incapacity of having an source of earning. In support of his contention that the appellant has an independent earning, apart from the fact that the atrocities which he was suffering because of the multifarious litigation he placed on record and denied, the allegation of the appellant that the respondent (husband) was having an earning of Rs. 90,000/- per month, is absolutely wrong because while working in the armed forces, there are certain deductions which are required to be made from the salary and most of the time he receives round about a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in which he has to spend on himself as well as his aged parents and unmarried sister and he also owes a responsibility to maintain them, hence the income of the husband as projected in the application under Section 24 is concocted and without any basis.

6. In para 15 of the objection, the respondent has taken a plea that the ground of Section 24 as raised by the appellant that she is dependent upon her parents and having no source of earning, is based upon the concealment of facts. According to the respondent the truth is that the appellant is running a beauty parlor under the name and style of "Hype and Hot" from where she was op