IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.537 of 2008 RAJENDRA RAI Versus KESHAR DEVI ----------- 3 16.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, when the relationship of man and wife between the petitioner and the opposite party is admitted and that the petitioner is also employed having a regular income from his employment as a Teacher of a Government Primary School, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order granting Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the lady opposite party, the wife is occupying the house of the petitioner and also is getting its usufruct by way of agricultural produce the same would should disentitle her to claim maintenance is to be only noticed for its being rejected. There is no such scope under Section 24 of the Act to hold an enquiry in this regard and in fact all that has to be noticed is that when a husband brings a suit for divorce, the wife during pendency of such suit, is entitled to maintain herself in the same standard in which she was living 2 prior to the institution of such suit. That being so, if the wife opposite party having no source of her own income had been granted Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of maintenance, that cannot be said to be either illegal or excessive much less beyond the scope of Section 24 of the Act. That being so, this civil revision application, being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)