RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Both parties, being husband and wife, are dissatisfied with the order dated 09.09.2011 of the Family Court in exercise of powers under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. awarding a sum of `60,000/- per month as maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 09.08.2005. When the appeal preferred by the husband came up before this Court, on the objection of the Registry as to the maintainability of the appeal, vide order dated 19.10.2011 the appeal was held to be maintainable and notice thereof was issued and the order of the Family Court in so far as qua the payment of arrears, was stayed.

2. The counsels have been heard. After hearing arguments on 03.01.2012, the husband was given an opportunity to sort out certain matters. Thereafter again on 18.01.2012, the counsels were heard.

3. The wife had claimed maintenance at the rate of `1,50,000/- per month. She is aggrieved from the grant of maintenance at the rate of `60,000/- per month only and in her appeal seeks maintenance at the rate of `1,50,000/- as claimed.

4. The Family Court has in the impugned order noticed/observed held:

(i) that the parties were married on 19.01.1981 and have two children from the wedlock;

(ii) they have been living separately in the same house;

(iii) that the matter regarding maintenance was settled on 01.02.2002 when the husband had agreed to pay maintenance of `1,50,000/- per month to the wife;

(iv) that the maintenance in fact was so paid at the said rate for four months but subsequent payments were stopped;

(v) the wife is not working and has no source of income;

(vi) the husband is a well qualified Doctor running Kolmet Hospital at Pusa Road, New Delhi and earning `35/- lakhs per annum as per income tax record and also holds several other properties;

(vii) it was the case of the husband that he was looking after all the financial needs of the wife and as such she did not require any maintenance;

(viii) that the wife was an active partner of hotel Marina and had 8% profit sharing in the said partnership;

(ix) that in a dispute relating to the partnership of hotel Marina, a sum of `2/- crores had been deposited in the Court to be withdrawn by the wife;

(x) that the wife also owned a 1000 sq. yards plot at Faridabad and an Opel Astra car;

(xi) that though the wife had led evidence but no evidence was led by the husband;

(xii) that the needs of the wife like food, electricity, residence etc. were being looked after by the husband since she was staying in the same house; The Learned Family Judge arrived at the figure of `60,000/- per month as maintenance.

5. We will first deal with the argument of the need of the wife for maintenance when she is residing in the matrimonial house and when admittedly she has not to spend any amount on her food, residence and residential amenities. We are unable to accept the contention of the husband that, the husband if provides food and residence, owes nothing further to the wife. Attention of the counsel for the respondent is invited to age old concept of “Kharcha-i-Pandan” as also noticed by privy council in Nawab Husaini Begam v. Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan. The women, even when rarely going out of the house and when the entire expense of the household was met by the husband, were still found entitled to an amount for their own spending. In certain regions, the said amount also went by the name of “Hath Kharch”. The expression used in the English system was “Pin Money”. Even otherwise, it is unbelievable that if the relations had been good, the husband if had been providing boarding and lodging, would not have provided anything further to the wife. The Supreme Court recently in Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011) 7 SCALE 741 has reiterated that the test to be applied in adjudication of maintenance is, to place the wife in the same position as she would have been if the relationship had continued