“….. the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 has to be taken into consideration. As per the contention of the petitioner the respondent is having properties worth crores and they were receiving rents worth lakhs every month and she is suffering with diabetes. She prayed to grant monthly maintenance from respondent No.1 as per the standard of her living. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.40,00,000/towards permanent alimony from her first husband at the time of settlement and the said amount is deposited in the bank in her name and she is receiving around Rs.35,000/per month interest and the said amount is sufficient to meet her expenses and moreover the respondent No.1 is an unemployee, but during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.1 is ready to pay some amount towards maintenance of the petitioner being his legally wedded wife. As per the evidence of P.W.1 she categorically admitted in cross-examination that she received Rs.40,00,000/- from her first husband towards permanent alimony and the said amount is deposited in her name. The above admission of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that she is having Rs.40,00,000/- deposited in her name and she is receiving the interest arrived from the said amount. In order to grant the monthly maintenance, capacity of the parties have to be taken into consideration and main purpose of granting maintenance for the livelihood of the aggrieved person as she is staying from the husband. In the present case, as can be seen from the record, the petitioner is having Rs.40,00,000/- deposited in her name and she is
