A working wife can still be entitled to claim maintenance, but it must be based on the material showing that the wife was unable to maintain herself when she filed an application.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 31.5.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II),Shimla in Application No. 59-S/6 of 2014 whereby he granted interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent.

2. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act’) for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty. During the pendency of the petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente-lite and expenses of proceedings was preferred on the ground that she was working as a teacher at Abohar (Punjab) and did not have much income and was not in a position to maintain herself in a proper manner and was not in a position to bear the day to day expenses. It was alleged that though the respondent had income of her own but the same was not sufficient to support her or even to meet her necessary expenses. The petitioner on the other hand was stated to be earning about more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month as he was working as Lecturer at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mouli, District Panchkula and belonged to a rich family, who own a house in Shimla and huge land holdings at Pathankot. On such basis, the respondent lay claim of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as travelling allowance and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The petitioner filed reply wherein it was stated that as per his knowledge, the respondent was getting Rs.40,000/- as monthly salary and apart therefrom was earning out of tuition she was taking at home.

4. The learned Court below granted maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent by according the following reasons:

“10. I do not find a considerable force to the submissions raised before me from the side of the husband. The court must bear in mind while granting interim maintenance, the standard of living to be enjoyed by wife at her matrimonial home. It is settled law that an arithmetical equality or inequality is not intended while granting any maintenance. The wife is supposed to meet all her requirements during the pendency of the final disposal of the petition. It is no answer to claim of maintenance, that the claimant could support herself and she acquired a good financial position. It is settled that where divorce claim raised by the parties, some conjectures and guess work by the court are impermissible. It is equally settled that court would not be in a position to judge the merits of the rival contention of the parties when deciding an application for interim alimony and would not allow its discretion to be fettered by the allegations made by them and would not examine by the merits of the case. In a case of working wife, our own High Court granted maintenance pendente-lite to wife. I am supported by the decision appeared in case Laxmi Sharma vs. Dr. Akash 2012(1) SLC 74, Radhika Negi vs. T.G. Negi (2012) 2 SLC 844.

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I hereby allow the present application by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of application and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.”

It is this order which has been challenged before this Court on the ground that the same is highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.

6. At the initial stage this Court made an endeavour to settle the matter by appointing a Mediator but such proceedings failed. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.9.2014 both the parties were directed to file their latest salary slips before this Court. Vide order dated 18.9.2014 the case was ordered to be taken up for hearing today and the parties have filed their respective salary statements.

7. A perusal of the salary statement of the petitioner issued by his emplo