The court considered the financial status and standard of living of the parties while determining maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral):

1. The petitioners filed the present petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for grant of maintenance.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent while petitioners No.2 and 3 are their daughters, both of them are minor. It is stated by the petitioner No.1 that the petitioners do not have their individual source of income and it is difficult for them to survive.

3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 was forced to leave the matrimonial home alongwith petitioners No.2 and 3 after facing atrocities. On various occasions she was taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry and for belonging to lower background. However, she left the matrimonial home only when the respondent physically abused her.

4. The respondent has refused to maintain the petitioners who do not have any suitable accommodation. It is stated that the respondent is a man of status and can afford to provide petitioners with an alternative accommodation.

5. It is averred that the petitioner No.1 has always wanted and made endeavours to stay with the respondent in their matrimonial home. However, she has often been harassed by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law. The respondent and his family members harassed the petitioner No.1 at the time of birth of both their girl children, petitioners No.2 and 3 for not giving birth to a male child. Due to the birth of the second birth child, atrocities towards the petitioners no.1 increased.

6. The petitioner made endeavours to make respondent understand that there is no difference between female and male child but respondent does not support the petitioner. Respondent stopped providing the petitioners their basic needs and the servants were instructed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1, not to serve the petitioneRs.

7. It is averred that respondent and his family members have always raised demands from the father of petitioner No.1, who in a hope that his daughter would live happily in her matrimonial home, kept on fulfilling their unreasonable demands.

8. It is stated in the petition that the respondent is a man of source who has a wholesale and retail shop and godown at 1127, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi under the name and style PAUL SHOES which deals in selling of shoes and shoe products. The respondent also has business of finance money under security at Paharganj. He has invested money under shares, bonds, securities and life insurances. He is the sole incharge of the business. The father and mother of the respondent are not dependent upon the respondent as they have their own source of income through interest which they have saved in the Bank Account.

9. It is averred that respondent is a well established per and has a luxuries life style and spends about Rs.30,000/- for purchasing branded clothes and shoes quarterly. He has a Honda Jazz car and two scooters, spends about Rs.20,000/- monthly on petrol. Respondent has two full time maids and one cook who are paid about Rs.20,000/- as salary.

10. On the other hand, the petitioner No.1 has remained a house-maker and has no source of income except maintenance that she may obtain on orders by this Court. It is stated that petitioner No.1 requires money for maintaining herself as well as her two daughters, their play school fees, expenses for curricular activities as well as their medical expenses which includes regular vaccination and medicines.

11. The petitioners are totally dependent upon father of petitioner No.1. All the winter clothes as well as gold articles are under the possession of the respondent. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to live in the same status as the respondent is living and seek maintenance.

12. The matter was adjourned from time to time for settlement. The petitioner No.1 is ready to go to matrimonial home with her husband/respondent. The respondent is not agreeable to settle the matter with the petitioner. He says that