annual income of Opposite Party is Rs.6,58,330/-, out of which he is repaying a Car loan of Rs.22,840/- per month. He further submits that out of monthly income of Rs.54,800/-, the Opposite Party has expenses of Rs.50,000/- including study expenses of Rs. Rs.30,000/- of their daughter. Thus, he does not have any sufficient means to provide further pendente lite maintenance to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has a three storied building, which is rented out and she earns a handsome amount out of that. It is his case that due to non-cooperation of the Petitioner, her defence was struck off. However, at present, the Opposite Party has led his evidence and the matter is posted for cross-examination of Opposite Party by the Petitioner. Without participating in the hearing of the case, this application has been filed at the fag end of the proceeding only to harass the Opposite Party. The impugned order under Annexure-1 is, therefore, just and reasonable and warrants no interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the average income of Opposite Party is Rs.54,000/- per month. However, Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that monthly expenses of Opposite Party is Rs.50,000/- including study expenses which the Opposite Party is providing to his daughter, who is residing with her mother (Petitioner). It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the Opposite Party is providing a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards study expenses of their daughter. It is also admitted case of the parties that the Petitioner has a three storied building at Pallasuni, which was used as Women’s Hostel. However, Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate submits that after outbreak of
