ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an order dated 12-06-2023 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal on I.A.No.II in M.C.No.104 of 2020 and allowing I.A.No.II as prayed for.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, her husband. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the two children born from the wedlock who are aged 11 years and 6 years. The 1st petitioner and the respondent got married on 09-05-2012 and as observed hereinabove, the two have two children born from the wedlock. It appears that the relationship between the two flounders and on floundering of the relationship the two are before the Family Court in M.C.No.104 of 2020. The issue in the lis does not concern the merit of the claim of parties in M.C.No.104 of 2020. The wife files an application in I.A.No.II invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking grant of interim maintenance at Rs.36,000/-per month. The concerned Court, after analyzing assets and liabilities statements produced by both the husband and the wife, orders maintenance at Rs.18,000/-per month. It is calling that in question the said order, the wife is before this Court complaining that she is entitled to maintenance as claimed in I.A.No.II, but the concerned Court has granted half of what is sought for.

3. Heard Sri B.R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri R.Anil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the 1st petitioner/wife would take this Court through the order and the documents to the petition to demonstrate that the husband is a Manager in Canara Bank, earns close to Rs.90,000/-as salary and the wife though qualified and was working, the husband makes her leave the job to take care of the children and the children are now being taken care of by the wife by leaving the job. Therefore, she would need maintenance as sought for. The learned counsel would further submit that the school fee and other incidental expenses of the children are not being met by the husband and the husband every time dodges the issue of payment of money.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/husband who has filed his statement of objections, vehemently opposes any order granting maintenance as sought for by the petitioners. It is his submission that the 1st petitioner is not a dutiful wife. She has not taken care of the needs of the husband and the husband is in a job which is fluctuating; he may at any time lose it. Therefore, with the fluctuating job he is not in a position to pay any amount beyond what is ordered by the concerned Court. He would submit that the wife was working as a lecturer earlier before marriage and for a little while after marriage. Therefore, she is qualified to work and she has to work and earn money and not depend on maintenance that is to be paid by the husband. He would further contend that he has to maintain his aged mother. In the teeth of inconsistent job in which he is placed, the wife is not entitled to maintenance to lead a luxurious life.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent is what is narrated hereinabove. The 1st petitioner was earlier working as a Lecturer. She gets married to the respondent in the year 2012. Two children are born from the wedlock. It is the submission and a matter of record that the husband asks the wife to quit the job so that the children are taken care of. Accordingly the wife quits the job. All was well for a long time. The relationship then flounders. Therefore, the couple are before the concerned Court in M.C.No.104 of 2020 after about 8 years of marriage.

8. The wife files an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance urging that it