The wife is entitled to claim interim maintenance from her husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the amount of maintenance should be reasonable, taking into account the needs of the wife, the capacity of the husband, and the claims of other dependents.

DESHPANDE J.- This Letters Patent Appeal by the husband arises out of a Notice of Motion, for fixation of interim maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of ]955, taken out by the wife in her Matrimonial Petition No. 302 of ]976 for restitution of conjugal right. She claimed Rs. 600 per month on the basis that she was unemployed and the husband was earning Rs. 1200 per month. She also claimed some amount towards costs. The husband asserted in reply that he was earning Rs. 720 per month, and not Rs. 1200. He also alleged that the wife was employed as, a teacher and was earning Rs. 450 per month. He further pleaded that he has to support his father, mother, sister and brother, and that his father's income was meagre. The wife then filed a second affidavit alleging that the father was earning Rs. 1,500 per month and the brother and the sister were earning members and that the family was running dry-fruit business. The husband, however, denied all this but did not indicate what father's income was.

2. A Judge of the City Civil Court allowed the application and fixed such maintenance at Rs. 145 per month from July, 1976 and Rs.125 towards the costs of the suit. He thought that the wife could claim only 1/5th of the net income of the husband which he found to be Rs. 720 per month. The wife filed an appeal against the said order in this Court and pressed for enhancement of the said quantum of interim maintenance. Hajarnavis J. raised the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 145 to Rs. 350 per month and that of costs from Rs. 125 to Rs. 500. In his opinion, the amount of Rs. 145 per month was too inadequate for a young educated girl living in Bombay in these days of high cost of living. He also found that the husband has failed to prove what his other liabilities were. The letters Patent Appeal is directed against this judgment.

3. Mr. Kapasi, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, raised two points for our consideration. He says that the wife under no circumstances can claim more than 1/5th of the net income of the husband. He replied on judgments of other High Courts, i.e. in the cases of Mukan Kunwar v. Ajeetchand1, Prasana Kumar v. Sureshwari2 and Smt. Sushila Devi v. Dhani Ram3. He, secondly, contends that such as enhancement in the amount of maintenance will prevent the husband from maintaining his parents, brother, etc. within his monthly income of Rs. 720 which is his only income as found by both the Courts.

4. Coming to the first contention of Mr. Kapasi, he relies on the practice followed in the City Civil Court in this behalf, which in turn is claimed to have been based on the rulings cited by him. The learned Judges in those cases have, no doubt, relied on the corresponding provision of section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, the proviso of which disentitles the wife from claiming interim alimony in excess of the 1/5th of the net income of the husband. In the absence of any indication in this behalf in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned Judges thought it proper to rely on this as a guiding factor. We are unable to trace any rational basis for this rule which prevents the wife from claiming more than 1 15th, even when her needs, and capacity of the husband, warrant awarding larger amount. This amounts almost to be a rule of the thumb. Sucha provision in the Act of 1869 may have been based on the then notions and concepts, as to a woman's status and position in the society and her claims against the husband. The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act enacted in 1955 are, on the other hand, based on the recognition of the wife as equal partner of her husband in life. This is just in keeping with the guarantee of equality to every citizen afforded by the Constitution. It does not depend on whether the wife chooses to devote her talents to household work or to sphere outside. This Act does not permit denying her right to share the husband's earnings, like his fortunes or misfortunes, on