S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage act (the Act), maintenance awarded by an order dated 6/7/1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application filed under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act, has been questioned.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for deciding this appeal are that the respondent, who was married to the petitioner, had preferred proceedings for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The proceedings were decreed by an order dated 5/8/1999. That order/decree is under challenge in a separate appeal, namely, FAO 351/1999. By order dated 5/8/1999, the appeal was admitted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was stayed.

( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, by way of final order on the appellant's application under Sections 24 and 26, the impugned order was passed on 6. 7. 1999.

( 4 ) IT is common case of the parties that the appellant is taking care of the two children born out of the wedlock. They resides with him. The elder child is a daughter who has now attained majority; she studying in college. The second child is a minor son aged 17 who is pursuing his senior secondary education.

( 5 ) THE material portion of the impugned order which, inter alia, noted that the respondent's salary was Rs. 16,000. 00 per month (the basic salary Rs. 6285/- per month with a income tax liability of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month) reads as follows:"taking into consideration his statement and also considering the permissible deductions towards P. Fund and I. Tax, etc. , I am of the view that carry home salary of the petitioner/husband can not be more than Rs. 11,000. 00 per month, considering the fact that he has not been permitted by the applicant/wife to live in the house which was purchased by his mother and other circumstances of the case and the conduct of the respondent throughout the proceedings, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be met if the respondent is allowed maintenance @ Rs. 3,500. 00 p. m. instead of Rs. 2,000. 00 p. m. with effect from the date of her application, considering the fact that the two children from the wedlock are residing with her. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. However, the petitioner/husband is directed to make payment in terms of the aforesaid order, including the arrears within one month from today. "

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel submitted that having regard to rise in prices and and the overall fall in the value of the rupee, the amount granted by the trial Court was not realistic. It was also submitted that having regard to the fact that the children's education had to be financed by the appellant since they are residing with her and also that the appellant has to ensure that the children are properly fed and clothed, the amount of Rs. 3,500. 00 is woefully inadequate. Counsel for the appellant characterized the impugned order as bereft of reasoning, and funded on irrelevan-cies. It was submitted that even if the assertion about the respondent earning Rs. 16,000. 00 were to be accepted, the grant of a mere Rs. 3,500. 00 per month for the appellant, and her two growing children, was grossly inadequate; it was less than a fourth of the respondent's declared income.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also submitted that on account of want of adequate finances, the children are likely in proper care and nutrition. It was submitted that the appellant's daughter is suffering from Anemia. Learned Counsel for the appel lant also submitted that the present level of the respondent is far higher than what it stood when the impugned order was passed. It was claimed that the respondent is drawing more than Rs. 22,000. 00 per month.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the assertion that the monthly salary of the respondent was about Rs, 22,000. 00. He, however, relied upon a salary statement, issued in respect of September 2005. As per the said statement, the gross monthly income of the