A.S. Godara, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred Under Section 115, CPC by the petitioner-husband against the non-petitioner/wife Smt. Champa impugning order dated 12.4.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nimbahera in Civil Misc. Case No. 29/94 whereby the learned Trial Judge has ordered that the non-petitioner/wife be paid maintenance pendentelite at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month with effect from 12.4.1996 and besides, a sum of Rs. 800/- be also paid as costs of proceedings. The relationship between the parties is not a matter of dispute.
2. Non-petitioner has moved an application Under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') seeking divorce in the Trial Court and, during the pendency of the petition, she also moved an application duly supported by an affidavit Under Section 24 of the Act thereby requesting for grant of interim maintenance besides costs of proceedings to be paid by the petitioner-husband. The non-petitioner/wife alleged that she was cruelly treated and was deserted forcing her to live with her parents and she had no means to sustain herself, whereas the petitioner-husband was a man of means having an income of on and average of Rs. 50,000/- per annum whereas the non-petitioner did not have any means to support herself.
3. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order and hence this petition.
4. As regard the facts giving rise to the present petition, there is no dispute. It is undisputed fact that the parties are husband and wife who had undergone a legal marriage according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Presently, non-petitioner is deserted and is forced to live with her parents. She maintains that she is without any means to maintain herself while on the other hand, the petitioner is a man of means and is in a position to maintain her and accordingly, she moved application for grant of maintenance pendente lite.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed overlooking the facts and circumstances and his main thrust of argument has been that while the non-petitioner was under examination in Criminal Complaint No. 41/94 on 28.4.1994, she clearly stated before the learned Magistrate that she happily lived with the petitioner-husband and that her father was bent upon to give her away in a 'Nata' marriage and she had no grievance or complaint against the conduct of her husband who is presently petitioner before this Court. Accordingly, he has submitted that the father of the non-petitioner is interested in breakage of the marriage between parties since, out of some ulterior motive, he wants to give away his daughter non-petitioner, in second marriage by way of 'Nata'to another person and the petition Under Section 13 of the Act has been lodged with an ulterior motive. Accordingly, the petitioner did not have enough means to pay amount of interim maintenance besides the costs of proceedings as ordered, in tine impugned order which is against the evidence available on record and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. However, as regards the statement dated 28.4.1994, there is another statement of the non-petitioner dated 4.12.1995 recorded by the Trial Court itself wherein she has clearly stated that just after marriage, the petitioner-husband started meeting out cruel treatment and she was often beaten and she was kept hungry, at the same time, being locked in room and false allegations of adultery were also levelled against her. In this view of the fact, no castle could be built up on the previous statement of the non-petitioner and accordingly, in exercise of her judicial discretion, while relying on the application and the affidavit submitted by the non-petitioner, the learned Trial Judge simultaneously, taking into consideration reply thereto and the affidavit also filed in support thereof, concluded that the petitioner had enough means to maintain his wife who is non-petitioner before the Court and accordingly, the Trial Court did not commit any irregularity resulting in irreparable loss occasioning a failure of justice. This order cannot be termed to be without jurisdiction or to have been passed with material irregularity by the Trial Court.
7. Besides, the proceedings of the Trial Court also shows that the trial has almost neared completion and in this view of the fact as well, this petition does not warrant acceptance and accordingly, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned orders
8. On the basis of above discussion and conclusion, this petition is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. However, looking to the nature of the dispute, it is directed that as far as possible, the main petition filed Under Section 13 of the Act, in case the same has not already been disposed of till now, shall be expeditiously tried and disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.