Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, on 23.04.2015 whereby he awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month alongwith litigation expenses at Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent.

2. The relationship between the parties is not disputed and the petitioner has only questioned the basis upon which the learned Court below awarded the maintenance.

3. It is vehemently contended by Shri Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Basant Thakur, Advocate that before passing the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the Court below to have taken into consideration the pleadings and other material placed on record and only after weighing the same, passed the impugned order.

4. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Smt.Gangu Pundlik Waghmare versus Pundlik Maroti Waghmare and another AIR 1979 Bombay 264 and judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nishan Singh versus Bhupendra Kaur 1985 (2) HLR 321.

5. I do not think that there could be any quarrel with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the proposition of law as contained in the aforesaid judgments. The order of grant of maintenance cannot obviously be passed mechanically and has to be passed only after evaluating the pleadings and other material available on record.

6. The applicant (respondent herein) in her application has averred that she is doing temporary work in ‘MNREGA’ Scheme which is available only for 90 days in a year and her total income is less than Rs. 1,500/- per month which is too meagre to sustain her. That apart, the daughter of the parties is also residing with her and is studying in 4th standard in a Public School. Her admission fee alone is Rs. 4,000/- per annum and besides that Rs. 650/- per month is being paid as regular fee. That apart, there are other expenses also which are required to be incurred for the purchase of school uniform including shoes, school bags, books etc. It is also averred that the petitioner was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and is having a flourishing business/shop at Main Bus-Stand, Chandi, Tehsil Kasauli and besides this has also kept two goods carrying vehicles and, therefore, his income from all sources was more than Rs. 50,000/- per month.

7. The petitioner in reply to the application chose only to deny most of these averments and it was claimed that he had provided to the respondent two rooms space in the ancestral house. Further, the respondent had been managing entire share of agricultural land in the ancestral property by employing labourers and was deriving Rs. 10,000/- per month from the same. That apart, she is also selling grass. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner is providing all the expenses to his daughter in the school. It was also averred that the respondent is employed in the school from where she is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and as such the income of the respondent from all sources is more than Rs. 15,000/-.

8. In the matter of making an order of interim maintenance, the Court is to be guided by the criteria provided in the Section itself namely the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status, the background from which the parties come from and the economical dependence of the wife/child upon the husband/father. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court may not be necessary. But, at the same time, the Court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.

9. A duty is fastened upon the Court to award maintenance pendente lite in such a manner so that spouse and the child can live with dignity a