The main legal point established in the judgment is that the wife is entitled to maintenance commensurate with the husband's status, considering the husband's financial and mental condition.

( 1 ) ON 11/07/2001 as agreed at the bar, an order was passed that for petitioner no. 1 interim maintenance may be fixed at Rs. 4000/~ per month. Keeping in view thee said fact interim maintenance for the minor daughter of the plaintiff Rupali Grover was fixed at Rs. 4000. 00 per month.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff had urged that interim maintenance of plaintiff no. 2 should also be fixed. The plaintiff no. 2 is stated to be the wife of the defendant. He contends that she has no moveable or Immovable property nor any source of Income whatsoever. She has no money to take care of her day to day living expenses. Defendant no. l Is alleged to be belonging to an affluent business family which amongst other Is carrying on business in the name and style of Ram Lal Grover and Sons which is the stockists of ACC Dumping unit. They have a retail outlets at loha Mandl. The monthly Income of defendant no. l was stated to be not less than Rs. 2lakhs per month. Defendant no. 1 is alleged to be leading a. luxurious life and enjoying all the modern amenities. A maintenance at Rs. 20,000. 00 per month; for both the petitioners as such was claimed.

( 3 ) REPLY has been filed by respondent no. 1. It has been asserted that applicant no. 2 belongs to an affluent and wealth business family haying family business of export of various Items and turnover in terms of crores. Applicant no. 2 with whom applicant no. 1 is residing has a palatial house In plot in Qutab enclave, Gurgaon. They have several properties In south Delhi. Applicant no. 2 was further alleged to be having business Interest In the family business and his father and brothers. It was indented that respondent no. 1 is well off. Me is making efforts to rehabilitate himself and re-start the business. Respondent no. 1 claims that he was suspected to be suffering from cancer. He was required to visit several doctors. His means in the process had been exhausted. Respondent was earlier a partner in the firm known as M/s Grover Agencies. The said firm was closed in 1996-97. Respondent claimed that he only has a rental income of Rs. 10,000. 00 per month from the house and his income tax return also shows that annual income of the respondent from the sole proprietorship firm is Rs. 16,665. 00 and after deduction of income tax comes to Rs. 7,304-60.

( 4 ) DURING the course of submissions it was pointed that when maintenance of the petitioner no. 1 who is the daughter of the applicant no. 2 and defendant no. 1 was fixed, no interim maintenance of petitioner no. 2 was fixed and therefore, presently maintenance for the wife should be fixed.

( 5 ) AS already pointed above it was an agreed order and in the said order there is no mention that the claim of petitioner no. 2 is not being pressed. In that view of the matter it cannot be termed that by virtue of the said order petitioner no. 2 is barred from claiming the interim maintenance.

( 6 ) WITH respect to the mode of fixing the income of defendant no. 1, parties were at dispute because learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 urged that the income of the family which according to him was a joint Hindu Family business should also be taken note of while evaluating prima facie the income of defendant no. 1.

( 7 ) IN support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Neelam malhotra vs. Rajinder Malhotra and Ors. AIR 1994 Delhi 234. Therein the court had found that business was being carried by the brother of the concerned person for the benefit of the entire family and that prompted the court that the income of the firm could be taken into account not only to determine the husband s status but fixing the quantum of interim maintenance. As noticed hereinafter that. the said fact has been not so established and therefore the decision in the case of Neelam Malhotra (supra) would be distinguishable.

( 8 ) IDENTICAL was the decision rendered by this court in the case of Smt. Renu Jain vs. Mahavir