S. Ravindra Bhat, J. —The present appeal is directed against the order of the Family Court in HMA No.58/2012 whereby the respondent’s (wife’s) application for maintenance under Section 24 under the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed.

2. The facts of the appellant’s case are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 2.1.2001. The appellant i.e. husband is working as a Naval Officer. The wife claimed that she was harassed and eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home in November, 2010. The husband preferred divorce proceedings on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of those proceedings, the wife moved an application for maintenance pendente lite which was eventually disposed off by the impugned order. The Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs.10,000 per month to the wife in addition to the amount which was being received by her from the Naval Authorities which the Court concluded – was Rs.29,762.

3. Learned counsel urges that a reading of the impugned order would disclose that apart from the necessary facts, the Court also overlooked the circumstances that the respondent’s (wife’s) income was not forthcoming in her affidavit and she did not disclose the amount received by her during the course of her employment. It is stated that the respondent is a trained teacher holding B.Ed qualification. Counsel highlighted the fact that even the Trial Court was sceptical of the wife’s contention that she was not in receipt of any income, stating that such an assertion was unbelievable.

4. It was further argued that the petitioner has left with barely an amount of Rs.8,707 per month after several deductions including the amounts paid towards the house building loan and the car loan secured by him. Counsel relied upon the salary slip produced during the course of the proceedings in support of the submission. It was stated that the appellant’s/husband’s position right now is pitiable as he is virtually forced to rely upon his parents with whom he lives in Goa.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife argues that the impugned order does not require to be interfered with and that it subserves the ends of justice. Counsel relied upon the wife’s affidavit to show that not only is she called upon to maintain herself but also two children who are at a crucial age. One of them is in the fourth standard and the other is five years of age. Counsel further highlighted that both the children are not of good health and considerable amounts have to be spent for their education as well as for their medical attention. Details of those amounts have been disclosed in the affidavit. It was argued additionally that the property at Gurgaon has been vacated and no income is forthcoming from it. If the income potential of the same had been realised, the appellant/husband would be in a position to pay even more maintenance. Counsel sought liberty to move the Family Court for appropriate modification of the order, in view of alleged increase in the husband’s salary.

6. This Court has considered the submissions. The salary slip of the husband discloses that he is recipient of the gross salary of Rs.1,03,905 per month. An amount of Rs.96,000 has been deducted from his salary; of this an income tax deduction to the tune of about Rs.13,700 is made from his salary. The next prominent items for which deductions are made are for sum of Rs.16,000, which is towards the provident fund advance. It was conceded before this Court that this advance was utilized to purchase a car which is now owned by the father of the appellant/husband. Apart from this, the other two deductions are for the sum of Rs.15,353 and Rs.1,200 towards the house building advance for the acquisition of the Goa property. Pursuant to the Naval Authority’s direction, a sum of Rs.29,762 each month is deducted from the salary of the appellant/husband. It is conceded that the Naval Authority’s order is for