JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - Heard the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner. 2. The Revision is filed by the husband aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance passed by the Court below invoking the provision under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would submit that he does not challenge the quantum of interim maintenance fixed by the Tribunal. But it is his submission that the Court below had not properly adverted to the evidence on record to show that the respondent wife had lived in adultery. It is his further submission that the woman who is living in adultery is not entitled to interim maintenance. Therefore, it is submitted that the order under challenge is bound to be revised. 4. I find that there is no merit in the Revision. On a careful perusal of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, I find that the wife who files an application invoking the said provision will have to establish only two aspects. One is that she is the wife of the person from whom she claims. Secondly, she has to establish that she is in dire need of resources to maintain herself. Therefore, the aspect as to whether the wife was living in adultery for the purpose of deciding the application seeking interim maintenance is found to be out of the scope of the aforesaid provision of law. 5. Even otherwise mere allegation and production of some documents without affording opportunity to the other side to counter the same and lead rebuttal evidence cannot be accepted as gospel truth to decide an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. Further, it is found that the Revision petitioner had not originally alleged adultery as against his wife when he moved the application seeking divorce invoking the provision under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is only subsequently he has come forward with an application for amendment and of course the same was allowed in the Court below. But it is to be seen that the Revision petitioner by way of reply to the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had not come out with such damaging version as against the respondent herein. 7. But it is to be seen that the Revision petitioner by way of reply to the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had not come out with such damaging version as against the respondent herein. 7. In view of the above, I find that the Revision is devoid of merit. Therefore, the Revision fails and stands dismissed. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------