The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the husband's total monthly salary, exemptions, and the respective status of the parties and their children in determining the appropriate maintenance amount.

V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The parties to the present petition are an estranged couple, the petitioner, being the wife and the respondent husband, who is an IAS Officer.

2. The challenge herein is against the order dated 25.09.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) filed by the wife against the husband for grant of maintenance pendente lite in a petition under Section 11 of the Act for annulment of marriage, whereby maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 22,000/- per month has been allowed to the wife apart from a consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The mainstay of the challenge is that according to the petitioner, in the face of admitted facts that the husband is receiving monthly salary of Rs. 1,07,000/-, the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court is on extremely lower side. Per contra, the husband contends that his monthly carry home salary being only Rs. 35,000/-, the order granting maintenance of Rs. 22,000/-, though on the higher side, does not require any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

4. In support of the claim for enhancement of maintenance, the wife has relied upon the following authorities: 1.Laxmi Sharma vs. Dr. Akash Deep, 2012 (1) Shim. LC 74, 2. S.S. Bindra vs. Tarvinder Kaur, AIR 2004 Delhi 442, 3. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt) vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7, 4. Mrs. Sushma Bawa vs. Ravinder Nath Bawa, 1993 (2) HLR 221, 5. Promila Nangia vs. Baldev Raj Nangia, 1989 (2) Hindu Law Reporter, 37 and 6. Mrs. Rajni Abrol vs. Adarsh Abrol, 1989 (2) Hindu Law Reporter, 115.

5. From the side of the husband, the following authorities have been relied upon:

1. Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar, AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 2748, 2.Ram Partap Sehgal vs. Smt. Yashbir, 1979 Hindu Law Reporter, 348 and 3. Smt. Shushila Devi vs. Dhani Ram and another, AIR 1965 Himachal Pradesh 12.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I have also taken due note of the law laid down in the authorities cited on behalf of the parties at the bar.

7. It is seen from the record that in an earlier petition filed by the husband against the wife, under Section 13 of the Act, for grant of a decree of divorce, the wife and the two dependant children of the parties, residing with her, were granted consolidated monthly pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 24 of the Act besides Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses, vide order dated 16.06.2007, copy of which has been brought on record of the present petition by the wife, a perusal whereof would go to show that on or about the year 2007, whereas son of the parties was studying in an engineering college, the daughter was a student of senior secondary classes. Though a period of about five years has elapsed since then, yet in the absence of any materials on record about the status of the children as of now, it can be safely inferred that either they have completed or are at the verge of completion of their studies.

8. Though, according to the husband, the wife is also having personal income from an ITI School and SCVT Counseling Centre, being run by her, yet there is no documentary proof on record to this effect. Similarly, according to the wife, the husband is also having an orchard from which he is having income, but again the income has not been either quantified or any material brought on record to ascertain such income.

9. From the materials available on record, it can be safely inferred that when on 30.03.2010 the husband had filed reply to the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite filed by the wife, out of which the present proceedings have arisen, he himself had admitted that his total monthly salary was Rs. 1,07,000/-, which must have gone up by now as it is a matter of common knowledge that gover