On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Family Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act. This is not a case where the petitioner was not able to maintain herself or bear the litigation expenses. Admittedly, the petitioner was in Government service and was working as a Junior Research Assistant in Dr. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola. The petitioner had an independent source of income which was much more than Rs.20,000/- per month. The Family Court, therefore, rightly held that the respondent was not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner towards monthly maintenance. Though the Family Court held that it was the duty of the respondent to pay some amount for the maintenance of his minor daughters, the Family Court declined the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of maintenance amount for the minor daughters as the petitioner and the minor daughters were residing in the flat owned by the respondent. The Family Court held that the respondent was paying a large amount every month towards loan installment for the flat in which the petitioner was residing. Though according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the amount paid by the respondent towards monthly installment is Rs.15,000/-, the learned Counsel for the petitioner disputes this position and states that the monthly installment is between Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Even assuming that the respondent is paying the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the purchase of
