JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. 1. In this Misc. Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in case No. 121/2018 is under challenged whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-wife and granted Rs. 10,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance along with litigation expenses of Rs. 15,000/-, so also, passed an order for payment of Rs. 1,000/- per appearance in the proceedings. 2. As per facts of the case, the divorce petition was filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty and adultery. In the said proceedings, an application was moved by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month and Rs. 51,000/- as litigation expenses on the ground that the appellant is possessing B.Tech Degree and is in employment at SG Engineering College, Jaipur and his monthly salary is Rs. 40,000/- per month and he is also getting Rs. 20,000/- from rent of the property. 3. By way of filing reply, the appellant submitted that he is not earning Rs. 60,000/- per month, but accepted that in addition to his salary, he is getting Rs. 10,000/- and living in joint family. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court while considering the entire facts of the case passed an order to pay Rs. 10,000/- pendent lite till pendency of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and further passed an order to pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses along with Rs. 1,000/- for attending court on each hearing. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent is practicing lawyer, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that there is no specific evidence on record to prove that the respondent-wife is earning woman, though there is some assertion in the reply filed by the appellant that she is practicing lawyer, but in our opinion, in absence of any evidence of earning by the respondent, it cannot be presumed that she is having means for her maintenance. 7. 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur in passing the order dated 7.4.2018 granting maintenance to the respondent-wife. 8. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal. Hence, this Misc. Appeal is hereby dismissed.