( 1 ) THE husband, who is the appellant before me, challenges the order awarding maintenance and costs of litigation in favour of his wife-the respondent. ( 2 ) THE wife claimed interim monthly maintenance at the rate of rs. 150 and costs of Rs,250 for defending the proceedings for divorce. ( 3 ) THE husband is a driver in the Vishveshwaraiah Iron and Steel ltd at Bhadravathi. In his evidence he has stated that he gets a total salary of Rs. 350 depending upon the work he does. But in the re-examination he has stated that he gets only Rs. 230 as basic salary and after deductions of the statutory payments, he gets a net amount of Rs. 250 and add. He has also seated that he has got 4 acres of land, the income of which is not forth-coming either from the evidence of the wife or from any ether evidence. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the two children of the parties are residing with the appellant. Besides he has got an aged mother and a grandmother to look after. It is common knowledge that the children require proper attention and substantial amount is necessary for their maintenance. Even assuming that the appellant gets Rs. 250 or a little more, there is no justification for the Court to direct the payment of Rs. 125 per month as maintenance to the respondent The Court should have more regard to facts of life and difficulties of a poor man to maintain two children, mother and a grand-mother, in these hard days. The principle which tne Court will have to bear in mind while awarding interim maintenance and expenses is that it should not work out as a penalty, crippling the party from prosecuting the proceedings. The lowest paid appellant, a fact of which is not disputed, should not be made to part a lion's share from his income either towards interim maintenance or towards costs. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the income of the appellant, to which I have already referred to earlier, there appears to be no justification for the court to award maintenance more than Rs. 70 and costs of Rs. 200 ( 6 ) IN the result, ihe appeal is allowed in part. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the income of the appellant, to which I have already referred to earlier, there appears to be no justification for the court to award maintenance more than Rs. 70 and costs of Rs. 200 ( 6 ) IN the result, ihe appeal is allowed in part. The order of the lower court is modified directing the appellant to pay Rs 70 a month towards interim maintenance and Rs. 200 towards expenses. No costs in this Court. --- *** --- .