JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Satyen B. Rawal for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. Vijay Nangesh for respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Nangesh has waived service of notice of rule. 3. In this application, applicant has inter alia prayed that; "21(a). Be pleased to allow this application for maintenance pendente lite u/s. 24 by directing the respondent/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of filing of the appeal till the final decision of the main First Appeal No. 563/2018. (b) Be pleased to pass the further order for the cost of litigation as well as travelling expenses to enable the applicant to effectively defend the main appeal." 4. The present applicant is respondent in First Appeal No. 563 of 2018, which is filed by present opponent (husband). 4.1. The Appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned Family Court in Family Suit No. 9 of 2016 (old No. 30 of 2012), which was filed by present opponent (husband) u/s. 13(1)(A) and Section 13(1)(1-B) seeking divorce. 4.2. The trial court has by the said judgment dismissed the application. 4.3. Aggrieved by the said judgment present opponent (husband - original plaintiff) has filed First Appeal No. 563 of 2018. 4.4. The said appeal came to be admitted vide order dated 26.02.2018. 4.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has declared that appellant does not press the Civil Application for interim relief. 5. Now the respondent in the appeal (wife) and original opponent before the trial Court has taken out present application seeking above quoted reliefs. 6. So as to support the relief, the applicant has averred and stated in paras 2 to 15 of the application as under; (2) That in the aforesaid proceedings of HMP No. 30/2012 the applicant had moved an application u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide Ex. 8 and respondent had filed his reply to it and ultimately the trial Court passed an order of maintenance dated 20th October, 2012 which operated till the final outcome of the said HMP. (3) That at the outset if it respectfully submitted that the applicant belongs to a poor family and has studied upto 4th Standard only and therefore, she can barely read whereas the respondent is a double graduate holding degree of B.A. and B.Ed. (3) That at the outset if it respectfully submitted that the applicant belongs to a poor family and has studied upto 4th Standard only and therefore, she can barely read whereas the respondent is a double graduate holding degree of B.A. and B.Ed. That in view such educational degree, respondent has set up a Swastic School at Surendranagar and in a very short span, the said school has expanded into an prominent educational hub which is run by a family trust of the respondent and his other family members and kith and kins of the appellant herein. (4) That it is very relevant to respectfully point out that till the trial Court passed the order u/S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent has been the Chairman and the Managing Director of Swastic School and the said school is running with huge success and as a consequence thereof the appellant has reached an elite status in terms of financial income as well as social position. (5) That it is respectfully submitted that around 1200 to 1300 students are studying in the said Swastic School which charges highest fees compared to other schools in Surendranagar and for the elite class student there are specially designed a/c class - rooms in the said Swastic School. (6) That there is ample evidence to support the fact of respondent being in charge of the Swastic School but he has deliberately suppressed and concealed such documents and evidence regarding his position in Swastic, his status and life style and most vitally the huge income of 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs per annum as a founder, Chairman and Managing Director of Swastic School just to frustrate the rightful and legal claim of the applicant/wife. That in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances set out in this application, the applicant most respectfully prays Your Lordships to draw adverse inference against the appellant/husband regarding all such aspects as pointed hereinabove. (7) That it is further relevant to point out one vital circumstance regarding the conduct of the appellant who had, only with a view to, wipe out the evidence regarding his position and designation etc. (7) That it is further relevant to point out one vital circumstance regarding the conduct of the appellant who had, only with a view to, wipe out the evidence regarding his position and designation etc. in the Swastic School, the respondent had applied before the Charity Commissioner for the change in the PTR entry by resigning from the post of Managing Trustee as well as Member of Managing Committee and applicant has the copies of some of the affidavits regarding resignation given by Revabhai Nagjibhai from the post of Board of Trustees and also as the President of the Trust and another two persons being Vanitaben Chhelabhai and Chhaganbhai Nagjibhai have been inducted as trustees and copies of their affidavits dated 20.10.2012 are annexed herein below. That the applicant had given the objections dated 06.12.2012 to the application for change - report in the record of Public Trust opposing such resignation and substitution of such persons as a trustees. That copies of such affidavits are annexed herein, respectively as Annexures D, E and copy of said objection as Annexure F. (8) That such a resignation by the respondent is noteworthy in view of the date of said application which is 20.10.2012 which coincides with the date of the order which was passed on 20.10.2012 whereby the Ex. 8 had been partly allowed. That such a timing of resignation is strongly indicative of the ulterior motive behind such a move for change report and such a conduct may kindly be taken appropriate note by this Hon'ble Court. (9) Therefore, it is clear that just to frustrate the legal and lawful right of the present applicant to claim for maintenance pendente lite u/S. 24 based on actual income, the respondent has given such a motivated change report by the appellant is the person who is in the helm of all the affairs of the Swastic School Trust and appellant is individually earning around 25 lacs to 30 lacs per annum and is living lavishly and the applicant being legally wedded wife is left to fend for herself by constant neglect by the appellant. (10) That it is further stated that applicant is also entitled to same level of amenities, facilities and life style as is being enjoyed by the appellant but the respondent has so far been successful in depriving the applicant of her legal right and during the pendency of the main HMP, there had been significant rise in the prices of essential commodities and even considering the said factors also, the applicant is entitled to higher amount of maintenance. (11) That as a matter of fact, the entire control of the family - trust which runs the said Swastic School is with the respondent only as he is the founder of it and all the Board of Trustees and other officer bearer have to two (sic) the line as per the dictates of appellant. That the applicant has already pointed out before the trial Court that respondent is earning around 25 to 30 lacs rupees per annum and in spite of such a huge income the respondent has been neglecting the applicant in paying reasonable amount of maintenance and now the effect and operation of the order dated 20.10.2012 having come to end and the applicant having not filed any other application for maintenance u/S. 125 of Cr.P.C., is constrained to file this application in the main First Appeal as applicant has no source of income. (12) That it is respectfully submitted that the quantum of the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2012 order u/S. 24 though was much on the lower side, due to financial constrain the applicant could not challenge it, but now in the year 2018, the applicant at least requires Rs. 25,000/- per month by way of maintenance pendente lite in view income, social position and life style of the respondent. (13) That the respondent has purchased many valuable properties in the names of family members and just close to the Swastic School the respondent has built two bungalows so as to accommodate all the family members who are posed as trustees and office bearers in the family trust. (14) That the respondent has taken a false plea before the trial Court regarding the sources of income, the quantum of this actual income and the Ld. Trial Judge has rightly disbelieved such false plea and therefore again a fresh order u/S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is required to be passed by this Hon'ble Court. (14) That the respondent has taken a false plea before the trial Court regarding the sources of income, the quantum of this actual income and the Ld. Trial Judge has rightly disbelieved such false plea and therefore again a fresh order u/S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is required to be passed by this Hon'ble Court. (15) That it is relevant to respectfully point out that the respondent is living a lavish and luxurious life with another lady called Mittal and on account of illegal co-habitation between the appellant and said Mittal, there is also a baby girl born to the said lady and, as the scope of this application is confined only to seek maintenance, the applicant does not want to go into larger details about such extra - marital relations and if need be, the applicant seeks to file a separate and detailed affidavit regarding the audacity of the respondent who is openly living in with Mittal." 7. From said details, it comes out that before the trial Court (during the pendency of the suit) the present applicant had prayed for pendente lite maintenance. 7.1. Having regard to the material available on record before the trial Court at the relevant time, the Court had passed an order directing the plaintiff (husband) to pay Rs. 6000/- per month to the opponent (wife). 7.2. It is not in dispute that plaintiff (husband) complied with such directions. 7.3. Now upon termination of original proceedings the appellant (husband) stopped the payment and that therefore the applicant (wife) has taken out present application u/S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant (wife) submitted that at the relevant time when application was filed before learned trial Court, the applicant did not have any material to demonstrate that the appellant (husband) is holding position of Chairman/Managing Director of school and earns substantial income. For want of any evidence at the relevant time the applicant could not press original demand (for Rs. 10,000/-) before the trial Court and that therefore the amount awarded before the trial Court was restricted for want of sufficient evidence to justify the request for higher amount. 8.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that only with a view that he may not have to pay any maintenance, the opponent (husband) resigned from the post of Chairman so that the order and proceedings can be defeated. 8.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that only with a view that he may not have to pay any maintenance, the opponent (husband) resigned from the post of Chairman so that the order and proceedings can be defeated. Various other allegations are made in present application. 8.2. Applicant has also averred and asserted and learned counsel emphasised that the original appellant (husband) has income of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 30,00,000/- per annum. 9. Learned counsel for the opponent (husband) submitted that the demand by the applicant is unjustified. According to learned counsel for the opponent any amount during pendency of the appeal is not required to be paid. According to the learned counsel for the opponent the demand for Rs. 25,000/- is, even otherwise, unjustified and such relief should not be granted. 10. We have considered the application, request by the applicant, rival submissions and material available on record. 10.1. Application is taken out u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The applicant herein is original opponent in Family Suit No. 9 of 2016 (Old No. 30 of 2012) which was filed by present opponent (i.e. husband of present applicant). The suit came to be filed by invoking Sections 13(1)(A) and 13(1)(1-B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The plaintiff - husband asked for divorce. Learned trial Court rejected the said request and dismissed the suit. 10.2. It is pertinent to mention, at this stage, that during pendency of the suit, present applicant had submitted an application u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and demanded pendente lite maintenance. Said application came to be partly allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2012 whereby, against the demand for Rs. 10,000/- towards pendente lite maintenance, learned trial Court awarded Rs. 6000/- per month. 10.3. Maintainability of present application is not opposed by present opponent. 11. Thus, having regard to the fact that present proceedings are "proceedings under the Act". The claim in the application by the applicant are maintainable. 12. At the outset, it is necessary to note that any affidavit controverting the details mentioned in the application is not filed by present opponent (husband). 12.1. The details and allegations in the application, are not denied or controverted. 12.2. The applicant has asserted that the opponent earns Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 30,00,000/- per annum. Even said averments are not denied. 12.3. 12.1. The details and allegations in the application, are not denied or controverted. 12.2. The applicant has asserted that the opponent earns Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 30,00,000/- per annum. Even said averments are not denied. 12.3. With such allegations, she has raised the demand of Rs. 25,000/- as pendente lite maintenance. 13. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and present price index as well as the details mentioned by the applicant and the fact that the order granting Rs. 6000/- was passed in the year 2012 i.e. almost before 7 years and during interregnum cost of living has increased manifold and since the opponent has not controverted the details mentioned by the applicant or the material placed on record by present applicant, we consider it appropriate to grant the application with a direction to the present opponent to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance u/S. 24 of the Act, to the present applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2019. 14. With such directions, Civil Application is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to that extent.