JUDGMENT B.C. Chakrabarti, J. This is a husband's appeal against an order of maintenance pendente lite and costs of litigation awarded in favour of the wife in a suit for judicial separation brought by the husband, being Matrimonial Suit No. 19 of 1973 of the 5th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore. 2. The wife filed the application under S. 24 of the Hindu' Marriage Act claiming Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- provisionally towards expenses of the litigation. She alleged that she had no independent, source of income, that she bas been deserted by her husband and was forced to live in her father's family, that the average monthly income of the husband is Rs. 30,000/- per month from his salary and allowances, that besides the said sum he has also other income derived from securities and interest from bank deposits. Having regard to the status of the parties and their living standard and also the financial capability of the husband, she claimed the sum aforesaid towards maintenance and expenses. It was further alleged that she had to incur considerable expenses towards litigation for she has to come all the way from Luknow where she is at present residing in her father's family, to defend the suit. 3. The respondent admittedly is employed as General Manager (Works), under Messrs Shalimar Wire Industries Ltd., Calcutta. His case is that the respondent wife has independent source of income which is more than adequate for her needs. She has money in Savings Bank Accounts and earns interest therefrom. The petitioner husband purchased shares of different reputed companies in the name of the wife the market value of which would be about Rs.9,000/-. She earns dividends from such shares. The respondent while leaving the matrimonial borne took away with her jewellery worth about Rs. 30,000/- and other valuables worth about Rs. 15,000/-. If the said articles and shares are converted into money and properly invested it can fetch an income around Rs. 8,000/- per annum. As regards his own ability the case of the husband is that he gets a sum of about Rs. 1,417/- per month at an average after deductions made by the petitioner's employer on account of income-tax, Provident Fund, House rent Insurance etc. 8,000/- per annum. As regards his own ability the case of the husband is that he gets a sum of about Rs. 1,417/- per month at an average after deductions made by the petitioner's employer on account of income-tax, Provident Fund, House rent Insurance etc. He has also to pay for the educational expenses of his younger brother and has to render occasional help to his aged parents. In such circumstances the husband alleged that the claim of the wife was highly excessive, arbitrary and untenable. 4. At the hearing of the application the father of the wire examined himself, the respondent due to illness being unable to attend the Court. On the side of the appellant the husband examined himself besides another witness who claimed to have attended the marriage ceremony of the parties. The husband also furnished a statement of accounts indicating roughly his average income. 5. The learned Additional District Judge found upon a consideration of the evidence that the wife had two Savings bank accounts with the Central Bank of India, Ballyganj. Calcutta, and the United Commercial Bank, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta in her name. The amounts to her credit in the said accounts come to Rs.1,750.10 and Rs. 1,353.87 respectively. The accounts however, were not operated since the wife left Calcutta. The allegation that the wife had taken with her valuable Jewellery worth Rs. 30,000/- and other articles worth Rs. 15,000/- besides the shares standing in her name have all been denied. The learned Judge observed that these allegations made by the husband have not been satisfactory proved. Accordingly the learned Judge found that she has no independent source of income and that she was being maintained by her father who in his turn was being assisted financially by his sons living abroad. The learned Judge determined the liability of the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and also Rs. 500/- provisionally towards the expenses of the litigation. In arriving at this figure he took into account the statement furnished by the husband. He also took into account the costs of collection, income-tax and similar compulsory deductions the husband had to suffer. The annual income after taking into account the compulsory deductions was estimated at Rs.36.886/- for the financial year 1973-74. The monthly salary thus came to Rs. 3,074/-. He also took into account the costs of collection, income-tax and similar compulsory deductions the husband had to suffer. The annual income after taking into account the compulsory deductions was estimated at Rs.36.886/- for the financial year 1973-74. The monthly salary thus came to Rs. 3,074/-. Having thus determined the net disposable income of the husband, the learned Judge awarded maintenance pendente Lite at the rates as aforesaid. 6. Being agrieved, the husband has preferred this appeal. Mr. Mukherjee appearing in support of tile appeal urged only one point namely that the amount was excessive and arbitrary. He argued that as per the statement of accounts furnished by the appellant husband the net income during the financial year 1973-74 which the appellant earned came to Rs. 17,910/-. He therefore contended that the learned Judge fell into an error in taking Rs. 36.866/- as the annual-income of the husband. According to him nothing in excess of one fifth of the net income should be granted as maintenance pendente lite. In elaborating this argument Mr. Mukherjee referred to the proviso to S. 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, which lays down "that alimony pending the suit shall in no case exceed one fifth of the husband's average net income for the three years next preceding the date of the order............" Mr. Mukherjee conceded however that the Hindu Marriage Act does nut contain any express provision as to the maximum alimony that may be granted pending the litigation but argued that some indications may be had in this regard from the analogous provisions contained in an analogous law namely the Indian Divorce Act. The quantum of alimony to be awarded is certainly a matter of discretion depending on various factors such as the ability of the husband, the needs of the wife, the social status, age, education and other requirements of the applicant and so on. In the absence of express provision as to the maximum alimony in the Hindu Marriage Act, the discretion vested in the Court in determining the reasonable amount of maintence should not be curtailed by importation of principle from the Indian Divorce Act. This has been so held in the case of Pratima v. Kamal Kumar reported in 68 CWN page 316. In that case however the husband was proved to be drawing Rs. 1,187/- per month after all deductions and a sum of Rs. This has been so held in the case of Pratima v. Kamal Kumar reported in 68 CWN page 316. In that case however the husband was proved to be drawing Rs. 1,187/- per month after all deductions and a sum of Rs. 250/- was found to be reasonable amount of maintenance pendente lite to be paid to the wife and son. Mr. Mukherjee conceded that taking Rs. 17,910/- as the annual income the annual maintenance should not exceed Rs. 3,600/- representing one fifth of the total annual income less the sum the appellant is required to pay towards the compulsory deposit scheme and a sum of Rs. 100/- which he has to defray monthly for the educational expenses of his brother. 7. This at once takes us to the question whether the calculation of the net income was correct. The statement as furnished by the husband shows that he draws Rs. 48,600/- towards salary besides a sum of Rs. 9,360/on account of bonus and a sum Rs. 2356/- by way of dividend from shares. From this he has deducted a sum of Rs. 32,629/- on account of deduction t0wards Provident Fund, against accommodation provided by the employer and income-tax and surcharge on income-tax. He has also deducted a sum of Rs. 6,140/- allegedly paid by him towards Life Insurance premium. A sum of Rs. 3,637/- has also been deducted being interest paid by the husband on loans taken for investment on shares. The total earning without any deductions comes to Rs. 60,316/-. Now the question is what deductions should be taken into account in order to find out the net income the learned Addl. Judge did not take into account the voluntary contribution namely the Life Insurance premium etc. in working out the total net income. He, however deducted the income-lax and surcharge on income-tax and arrived at the figure of Rs. 36,886/- Mr. Mukherjee made a grievance, and we think rightly that if the payments towards Lire Insurance premium and the voluntary contribution towards Provident Fund are not taken into account, then the income-tax payable would be much more than shown in the statement, Taking the income at Rs. 60, 316/- from all sources, we had the income-tax and surcharge payable, worked by the office. It comes to Rs. 26,731/- approximately. Therefore, the total annual income comes to Rs.33,585/-. 60, 316/- from all sources, we had the income-tax and surcharge payable, worked by the office. It comes to Rs. 26,731/- approximately. Therefore, the total annual income comes to Rs.33,585/-. From this should again be deducted a sum which the husband is required to pay towards compulsory deposits under the provisions of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposits Act, 1974. Making provision for the same and for the sum of Rs. 100/- allegedly paid monthly by the appellant for the education expenses of his younger brother, the annual net income may be taken at about Rs.30,000/-. If that be so, we do not think that the sum of Rs, 500/- towards maintenance pendente lite for the respondent wife is unreasonable. Incidentally we may refer to a suggestion put to P.W.1 the father of the wife in cross-examination. He said in cross-examination in answer to a suggestion that it was not a fact that Rs. 500/- per month was sufficient for Puspa and her son. The suggestion obviously was made in the context of the claim of Rs. 2,000/- but at any rate the suggestion indicates that the sum awarded by the learned Additional Judge was not unreasonable. 8. The learned Advocate appearing for the wife also referred to us a decision reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta page 64 (Jagadish Prasad Tulsan v. Sm. Manjula Tulsan) where it was observed, that as the Court is entitled to use its discretion depending on the facts of the case, one third of the admitted net income amounting to about Rs. 450/- per month could have been awarded, although a sum of Rs. 400/- per month was considered just in the circumstances of the case namely that in that case the wife was found guilty of cruelty towards the husband. It may be recalled that that was a case for maintenance under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act where the conduct of the parties is a relevant consideration. There the sum of Rs. 400/- awarded towards maintenance represented a little less than one third of the admitted net income. 9. There is no hard and fast rule on the basis of which the amount can be determined with precision. It depends on a variety of facts and circumstances though ordinarily and in the absence of special circumstances, one fifth of the hasband's income less wife's income, if any, is taken as a safe guide. 9. There is no hard and fast rule on the basis of which the amount can be determined with precision. It depends on a variety of facts and circumstances though ordinarily and in the absence of special circumstances, one fifth of the hasband's income less wife's income, if any, is taken as a safe guide. 10. In the instant case we are unable to agree that the net disposable income of the husband is Rs. 17,910/- as alleged. It is in the vicinity of Rs. 30,000/- after making reasonble deductions. Consequently, the assessment of the maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 500/- per month as made by the learned Judie cannot be said to be unreasonable. From this however should be deducted the wife's income if any. 11. So far as that is concerned there is not much of evidence which can be relied or acted upon. She has however about Rs. 3000/- in two Bank accounts if this sum is profitably invested, it may fetch about Rs. 300/- by way of interest per annum. Consequently the maintenance awarded by the learned Judge may be reduced to the extent of Rs. 25/- per month. And the find accordingly. The appeal accordingly succeeds to this extent only. The monthly maintenance pendente lite is determined at Rs. 475/-. There is nothing to interfere with the award of Rs. 500/- towards expenses of litigation. 12. The appeal therefore is allowed in part to the extent indicated above We make no order as to costs. A.K. Sen, J. 1 agree. Appeal allowed in part.