Zoology (4th Semester) from M.D. Univers i ty, Rohtak at the time of th e solemnization of the marriage with respondent. Prior to it, the petitione r had also p a ssed two years Degree Pr o gramme in B.Ed. from M.D. University, R ohtak during the academic s ession 2018-2020 with flyin g colours obt a ining 71% marks. The petitioner has also qualified Centra l Teacher Elig i bility Test (CTET) in the year 2 021. Besides this, petitioner i s also making preparation for Indian Civil S e rvices Examinations by joinin g coaching cla s ses at Drishti IAS Institute, sit u ated at Mukharjee Nagar, Ne w Delhi residi n g there in a P.G. Hostel. T h e true copies of educationa l qualification s testimonials and receipts o f fees and other charges ar e attached he r ewith for the kind perusal of thi s Hon’ble court.” 7. Despite the above facts, it is the admitted case of th e petitioner t h at she is not working. During t he course of arguments, whe n the Court p o ses a query to the learned cou n sel for the petitioner as to wh y the petitioner was not working despite being able bodied and highl y qualified, it w as contended by learned counsel that the petitioner is unabl e to work as s h e is presently pursuing M.Sc. H owever, when it is pointed ou t to learned c o unsel for the petitioner that i n Para 4 of the impugned order , the case of t he petitioner has been duly n o ted that she is M.Sc. (Zoology) , B.Ed., and h a s cleared Central Teacher Eligi b ility Test, learned counsel no w submits tha t she is preparing for UPSC. It is then pointed out to learne d counsel tha t the said fact also finds ment i on in Para 4 of the impugned order dated 2 4.11.2022 to the effect that th e petitioner ‘…is taking coachin g for UPSC ex a mination…’, and how could UP S C preparation of the petitione r
