under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’) and for restitution of conjugal rights, respectively. All the three petitions were tried together. The Court below allowed O.P.No.1009 of 2011 filed by respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, while dismissing O.P.No.864 of 2013 filed by petitioner under Section 9 of the Act and allowed M.C.No.236 of 2012, granting maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 before this Court. The Court below recorded a finding that petitioner is not entitled to claim restitution of conjugal rights, as O.P.No.1009 of 2011 filed by respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage is allowed, but the reasons assigned by the Court below for allowing those petitions are different. While deciding point No.3 in the common order, the Court below except recording a finding that petitioner has no means to maintain respondent No.2, did not even record a finding as to refusal and neglect of petitioner to maintain respondent No.2. It is not the case of petitioner that he has no means to maintain respondent No.2. Petitioner has not placed any evidence to show that respondent No.2 is having sufficient means to maintain herself. For granting maintenance, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to prove that she was neglected or refused to maintain by her husband and that she has no means to maintain herself while petitioner husband possessed sufficient means to maintain her.
