has been granted and despite the lapse of period of 2 years, no maintenance has been paid to the respondent by reason of the pendency of the Appeal proceedings. The fate of the Appeal proceedings will be decided as and when the same is adjudicated. However in the meantime the right of the respondent-wife cannot be permitted to be prejudiced by reason of delay in adjudication of the Appellate proceedings. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court has considered the submission that the respondent is facing economical problems in her daily life and rightly held that as far as the allegations are concerned they are yet to be proved before the Trial Court. While doing so, the Sessions Court has rightly distinguished the decision which is relied upon by learned counsel before this Court also. As regards the submission that Section 18 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not entitle the Hindu wife to separate residence if she is unchaste or ceases to be an Hindu, the Section does not provide that even in the case of grant of interim maintenance without an evidence being led, only on the basis of allegations of husband that she is leading an unchaste life, no maintenance can be granted to her.
