JUDGMENT :

Manjusha Deshpande, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered by the Judge, Family Court Mumbai at Bandra in Petition No.A-1022 of 2004 and Petition No.C-188 of 2004 delivered on 23^rd July, 2010, thereby the petition for divorce has been decreed by dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dismissing the petition for maintenance filed by the wife. Feeling aggrieved by the outcome of both the petitions the respondent- wife has approached this Court by way of filing the appeals against the impugned orders.

2. The husband had filed Petition No.A-1022 of 2004 for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act 1955, on the ground of cruelty, whereas the wife has filed Petition No.C-188 of 2004 seeking maintenance and residential accommodation under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

According to the husband, the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per the Hindu Vedic Religious Rites on 28^th February 2002. Within few days of solemnization of marriage, dispute arose between the parties.

In June 2002, their dispute was resolved through mediation and they decided to start afresh. However, this reconciliation did not last for long and again on 7^th July 2002, the wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents.

After waiting for a considerable period the husband filed Petition for Divorce on the ground of cruelty. The allegations of the husband were that wife was not behaving properly; was not doing her household work; she was disobedient towards his parents; her behavior was rude; she was not able to cook; the wife caused him mental stress, all these acts amount to cruelty.

The parties filed their respective written statements and lead evidence. The husband examined himself and his two witnesses in support of his allegations of cruelty. The wife deposed on oath and opposed all the allegations. After hearing the respective parties the impugned Judgment came to be passed.

3. So far as the relief of maintenance claimed by the wife is concerned, during the pendency of the maintenance petition the application for interim maintenance filed by the wife was allowed and the husband has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.1200/- per month along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- vide order dated 21^st September, 2005. This order continued to operate during the pendency of the petition till its decision.

It is submitted that the respondent was very much employed and is a qualified Chartered Accountant who was earning more than Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court. The defence of the respondent before the Family Court about losing the job and not being able to earn anything is taken with a view to defeat her claim of maintenance. Presently he is having an established practice as a Chartered Accountant, therefore, the order refusing maintenance needs to be set aside by enhancing the amount which is granted by this Court by way of ad-interim relief.

4. According to the appellant, it is admitted by the respondent that she was conducting art classes like decoration of bridal sarees, decorative articles along with basic drawing and painting from which she was earning sufficiently as such she was able to maintain herself which dis-entitled her for receiving any maintenance.

5. It is submitted that she, on her own volition, deserted the respondent on 7^th July 2002 by leaving the matrimonial house and refusing to resume cohabitation. It was also contended before the Court that the respondent was not having any source of income because he was without any stable job and whatever his earning was it was from his Articleship.

6. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the evidence produced by the parties has not been properly appreciated by the learned Judge of the Family Court while passing the impugned judgment. While refusing the maintenance there is nothing produced on record by the res