PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Sonu and his wife Premlata are aggrieved by the order dated February 20, 2014 disposing of application filed by Premlata under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. From out of the wedlock a daughter currently aged 9 years and a son currently aged 7 years were born. Premlata was a housewife. She has no income. It is not the case of Sonu that his wife was or is earning any money.

2. As per the impugned order, Premlata has been awarded maintenance in sum of Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of the application filed by Premlata. In arriving at the income of Sonu the learned Judge Family Court has taken into account the income tax returns of Sonu for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and has highlighted that the same show that Sonu is engaged in a private business from which gross receipts increased from Rs.4,38,743/- in the year 2008-09 to Rs.6,40,530/- in the year 2010-11. The learned Judge Family Court has noted that as per the returns salary paid by Sonu to his employees has increased. In the statement made to the Court by Sonu, he claimed having employed labour through a contractor to whom he pays Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the statement he has two regular employees to whom he pays Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. Analyzing the income tax returns the learned Judge Family Court has found that the returns for the three years under scrutiny evince net profit to be around 30% of the gross receipts. Learned Judge Family Court has highlighted that Sonu withheld vital documents in the form of income tax returns for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The learned Judge has noted that Premlata has filed photographs of the workshop where Sonu carries on business. The photographs show six machines installed. The learned Judge has noted that Sonu has obtained two policies from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and pays annual premium in sum of Rs.26,580/-. The learned Judge Family Court has opined that keeping in view the salaries paid by Sonu and premium paid to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sonu needed to be examined in Court and when examined he admitted that gross receipts from business were Rs.10.65 lacs in the year 2011-12 and Rs.11.65 lacs in the year 2012-13.

3. Opining that there was sufficient material to conclude that Sonu was hiding his true income, the learned Judge has proceeded to consider reasonable monthly expenses to be borne by the wife. Tuition fee for both children being concededly Rs.1,600/- per month, house hold expenses have been estimated between Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Rs.2,000/- per month towards water and electricity charges and Rs.3,000/- per month towards other miscellaneous expenses such as clothes for the children, medical emergencies etc. The learned Judge has arrived at the figure of Rs.18,000/- per month as reasonable maintenance.

4. For the purpose of the two appeals, relevant would it be to highlight that Sonu had also filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying to be appointed as Guardian of his two minor children with their custody entitled to him. On May 24, 2016 he withdrew the petition admitting that he was in a live-in relationship with another woman named Sita who had a daughter through him and was six months old as of May 24, 2016.

5. The object behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to provide for maintenance, pendente-lite, to a spouse in matrimonial proceedings so that during the pendency of the proceedings the spouse can maintain herself/himself and also have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of funds.

6. A spouse unable to maintain himself/herself is entitled to maintenance on the principle of equi-status and respect that the spouse would have enjoyed if he/she continued to live with other spouse.

7. The provisions of Section 24 are beneficent in nature and the power is exercised by the