JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J 1. The respondent-wife, who has been residing in U.S.A. prior to her marriage and while still staying there she is claiming maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses against the petitioner-husband (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') in a proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed at the instance of latter, wherein, the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 4.3.2010, awarded her maintenance @ Rs.10,000/-per month; further a sum of Rs.10,000/-on account of litigation expenses and the petitioner was also to bear her travelling expenses from U.S.A. The petitioner has assailed the said order. 2. The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 16.3.2008. It has been alleged that the petitioner is a resident of India whereas the respondent is settled in U.S.A. and is a green card holder. She is residing with sister and mother, and is pursuing her education there. After spending a few days with the respondent, she had left for U.S.A. and never came back thereafter, except on the Bhog ceremony performed on the death of the petitioner's brother that too for few months. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a divorce petition. 3. During the pendency of the petition, instead of attending the court personally the respondent through her counsel moved an application for maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses by levelling the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner and further alleged that she is pursuing her four years diploma in accounts from Lone Star College, Kingwood, USA and her entire education expenses are borne by her parents. She is residing in U.S.A. and it is practically impossible for her to contest the petition from such a long distance, as such, she needs money to come to India. The petitioner is a big transporter and is earning more than `5,00,000/-per annum besides, he has also rental income in lacs. 4-5. In reply, the petitioner submitted that it was not the respondent who was treated with cruelty but the shoe lies on the other leg. She deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and excuse with an intention to end the matrimonial ties forever. She is earning a lot as she is working in a general store. She is tax payer and has social security cover of U.S.A. Government but has not intentionally disclosed the same as well as her tax status. She deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and excuse with an intention to end the matrimonial ties forever. She is earning a lot as she is working in a general store. She is tax payer and has social security cover of U.S.A. Government but has not intentionally disclosed the same as well as her tax status. It was further asserted that the respondent has been claiming that he was no match for her. He denied the other allegations including the income. After hearing both the parties, the trial court awarded maintenance pendente-lite to the tune of `10,000/-per month and `10,000/-as litigation expenses. The trial court also ordered to bear her travelling expenses from U.S.A. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. The admitted facts are that the respondent is Non Resident Indian. She has been residing in U.S.A. prior to and after the marriage. The respondent did not move the application for maintenance personally but while sitting abroad, she is settling terms through her counsel. The marriage between the parties had taken place on 2.3.2008. Except that she came once to India in the month of July, 2008, she did not come to India with the intention to stay with the petitioner. 8. Regarding marriage she has stated that she had come to India in the month of January, 2008, whereupon, on account of the influence of uncle Onkar Singh Grewal, she was made to marry with the petitioner with the condition that the latter would migrate to U.S.A. and she ultimately returned to U.S.A and is residing there since October, 2008 whereas the petitioner has not visited her in U.S.A. 9. From the affidavit filed by her in this Court, it transpires that she is earning $1400/-in a month and is resident of 19827, Burle Oak DR Humble, TX-77346, U.S.A. and staying permanently with her mother and two younger sisters. Though, she has stated that she is doing four years accountancy degree, yet, she has not disclosed if she has completed the same or not. But one fact is clearly indicated from the affidavit that she is earning hand. As such, she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself. She has not disclosed if she is ready to join the company of the petitioner. 10. But one fact is clearly indicated from the affidavit that she is earning hand. As such, she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself. She has not disclosed if she is ready to join the company of the petitioner. 10. The intent and purport to introduce Section 24 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein referred as, 'Act, 1955'), Section 18 under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (herein referred as, 'Act, 1956') and Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide subsistence allowance during the pendency of the litigation or otherwise to the spouse, the unmarried daughter, child and old parents, who : (i) Has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and necessary expenses; and (ii) Who are unable to maintain themselves. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 reads as under :- “24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings -Where in any proceedings under this Act it appears to the court that either to the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.” 11. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 entitles not only the wife but also the husband to claim maintenance pendente-lite on showing that he has no independent source of income. However, the husband or the wife, as the case may be has to satisfy the court that either due to physical or mental disability he/she is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood. It is also noticed that if the husband was able bodied and is not mentally ill and only that his business had been closed down are no grounds to refuse maintenance to the wife, who is unable to maintain herself or her minor child. It is also noticed that if the husband was able bodied and is not mentally ill and only that his business had been closed down are no grounds to refuse maintenance to the wife, who is unable to maintain herself or her minor child. 12. It is not the bounty to be showered upon the aforesaid persons and against spouses who have sufficient means, but it is only for the survival of the destitutes during the pendency of the litigation, however, such maintenance to be awarded should be reasonable. 13. While looking at the circumstances of the present case, it transpires that the marriage survived only for four months and thereafter she left India and then came back for a short span on the death of petitioner's brother and thereafter while staying in U.S.A. without disclosing, as to when she would return and would join petitioner's company is claiming maintenance. Her affidavit sent through fax clearly reveals that she is an earning hand and she has not stated if she is unable to maintain herself or that she has no means to come to India. Actually, the zimni orders recorded by this Court clearly indicate that she has no intention to come to contest the case. On 24.2.2011, the court had directed the learned counsel for the respondent to seek instructions whether she was ready to join her husband. The said order is reproduced as under : “Counsel for the respondent is directed to seek instructions, “whether the respondent is ready to join her husband and to live with him, in India?” Adjourned to 6.4.2011.” 14. On 6.4.2011, the case was adjourned to 10.5.2011 and even thereafter for various dates, however, on 3.10.2011, this court made the following observations :- “It is surprising to note that the respondent-wife while sitting in America is contesting this divorce petition. The respondent is directed to file affidavit if she wants to come to India to stay with her husband or to attend the court for a dialogue with the petitioner-husband regarding resumption of matrimonial ties. Adjourned to 13.10.2011.” 15. Again no response was given by her or her counsel and on 3.11.2011 this court observed as under :- “The marriage between the parties took place on 2.3.2008 and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 7.4.2009. Adjourned to 13.10.2011.” 15. Again no response was given by her or her counsel and on 3.11.2011 this court observed as under :- “The marriage between the parties took place on 2.3.2008 and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 7.4.2009. Since then she has not attended the court personally but, while appearing through her counsel or attorney, is settling terms for her arrival to attend the case. Learned counsel for the respondent states that she has been studying in Lone Star College, Kingwood at that time (i.e. 3-½ years back). Trial court record not received. The same be requisitioned telephonically. Adjourned to 8.12.2011. However, learned counsel for the respondent is directed to appear in this court and furnish an affidavit with regard to the following facts 1. Whether she is permanent resident or a green card holder? 2. If she is studying, then since when she is studying; place where she is residing and what is the tenure of the course; actual income she is deriving from all her sources; vehicle which she is maintaining and the relative with whom she is staying? 3. Whether she has been residing abroad since before marriage? Learned counsel has offered to furnish her affidavit for disclosing the aforesaid information by the next date. 16. The aforesaid directions were not complied with, however, a scanned copy of the affidavit, keeping reservations with regard to genuineness of the affidavit, it may be observed that the affidavit did not respond to the queries raised by the Court. 17. All this goes to show that the respondent is more interested in harassing the petitioner by way of asking for maintenance and then to contest the petition. Actually the petitioner had also deposited a bank draft of `45,000/-in the court on 29.4.2010 and the said draft has not been encashed by the respondent. Similarly, on 11.11.2010, a draft of `20,000/-was again tendered in the court but was not accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent (annexure P/6) 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an open offer to rehabilitate her on any terms and is ready to bear the expenses of her air ticket to India for a dialogue. In view of the aforesaid conduct of the respondent it cannot be said to be fair and above board. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an open offer to rehabilitate her on any terms and is ready to bear the expenses of her air ticket to India for a dialogue. In view of the aforesaid conduct of the respondent it cannot be said to be fair and above board. She has never attended the court and is playing a proxy war. She is earning 1400/-American Dollars per month. Some equity could be attended to in her favour, if she could have come to India and make a dialogue and show her bona fides. She has no where stated in her affidavit dated 5.12.2011 that she is unable to maintain herself. As such, the impugned order passed in a mechanical manner being perverse cannot be allowed to be sustained. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted, impugned order dated 4.3.2010 is set aside and the application for interim maintenance is dismissed. In case she comes to India and asks for payment of expenses of her air ticket by making her attendance before the trial court, then the trial court would consider the same.