By the impugned judgment the High Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.
Present Honble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar Honble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Ms. Shalu Sharma, Rajesh K. Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs.,
for the appellant.
Parties were married on October 2, 1963.
P. Tripathi, Arvind Varma, Advs.
Thereafter from January 1, 1996 husband is working with M s. Mukul International Pvt.
In this span of 26 years in their married life, they have become the parents of four children, two sons and two daughters.
for K.L. Mehta Co., Advs.
He retired and Lt.
Colonel on August 10, 1986.
It is number proper or even justified on the part of the appellant to implead the companyrts as respondents and respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, struck off from the record of this appeal.
for the Respondents.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T P. Wadhwa, J. Leave granted.
This is wifes appeal against the judgment dated October 14, 1996 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
He stated that within two years of the marriage the wife started creating problem for him and she persisted in her behaviour right till the year 1989.
She is aggrieved by the impugned judgment under which she was awarded maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for short the Act at the rate of Rs.
2,500/ Rupees two thousand and five hundred only as expenses of litigation and maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.
Her revision before the District Judge Dehradun against this order was dismissed.
Eldest daughter who is 34 years old and unmarried is living with her mother who maintains her.
The husband at that time was an army officer.
On September 28, 1989 he filed the petition for divorce against his wife under Section 13 of the Act on the alleged grounds of cruelty and desertion.
He retired from that post on August 21, 1995.
On an application filed by the wife in the trial companyrt in proceeding for divorce initiated by her husband, respondent No.3 herein, she was awarded Rs.
1500/ per month.
Respondent 1 and 2 in this appeal are respectively the District Judge, Dehradun and the Additional Civil Judge IInd , Dehradun who are described as proforma respondents.
1000/ per month.
1500/ per month.
She further filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court.
