JUDGEMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---In a matrimonial petition filed by the wife as against the husband on the ground of desertion and cruelty the wife took out a notice of motion for interim maintenance and for costs. The learned Judge dismissed the said notice of motion on the ground that for 19 years she had stayed away from her husband and that she did not ask for maintenance and that, therefore, she should not get any order of maintenance. 2. Prima facie, this line of reasoning is untenable in law. There are circumstances and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration particularly when the wife has to stay away from her husband. In her petition, she has made various allegations as to why she could not stay with her husband. When she left her husband, she was pregnant and thereafter she delivered a son who is now about 19 years old. For 19 years the husband did not pay a single pie to the wife or to the son. I am told that her son is studying in a college and she is meeting all the expenses of herself as also of her son. She is working as a mill hand on a temporary basis and she earns about Rs. 400/- per month. 3. Mr. Mody says that her son is doing some odd jobs and earning some amount. Mr. Mody further argues that in any event her son having attained the age of majority, he is not entitled to any maintenance. He further submits that delay and inaction is sufficient to dismiss her application. 4. I do not think that the law could be that inert. It is not so much of law as it is of life. The rule of law must run close to rule of life. The idea of granting maintenance is to see that the wife and children get a standard of living on par with the husband. Whether it is a full meal or half a meal, each one is entitled to a share. If a son reaches the age of eighteen, it does not mean that as from that date he has to starve. That is not the law. It only means that as from the age of eighteen the law takes note of the fact that he has capacity to earn. If a son reaches the age of eighteen, it does not mean that as from that date he has to starve. That is not the law. It only means that as from the age of eighteen the law takes note of the fact that he has capacity to earn. But if he still depends on his mother either for study or for shelter, that fact will have to be taken into account, when a mother (or wife) is given maintenance. He is not given any maintenance. But the one who looks after him gets it. 5. In the present case, Mr. Mody says that the husband's income is about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. He has a printing machine and he does business on his own. I accept his statement, though I am not sure that is his only income. His income may be more. He has not made a proper disclosure. But it should not matter. I think assuming that his income is between Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month and assuming that the wife is in a position to earn Rs. 400/- per month, the total income of this couple would not be less than Rs. 1,400/- per month. Assuming that the son does, some odd jobs, the respondent would have spent not less than Rs. 400/- per head. Since her son is staying with her she should be entitled to get that much from the respondent. The learned Judge has mainly gone on the basis that there is considerable delay of 19 years before the wife filed the petition. That does not mean that for the rest of her life she should be without any maintenance at all. 6. I will have no hesitation in setting aside the said order. I would, as mentioned above, grant a reasonable maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month. The notice of motion was taken out in the year 1986. However Mr. Mody urges that his client will not be able to pay if there is any order to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the notice of motion. 7. I think, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the proper order would be as follows : The impugned order passed by the learned Judge on April 22, 1987 is set aside. I fix the maintenance at Rs. 400/- per month. 7. I think, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the proper order would be as follows : The impugned order passed by the learned Judge on April 22, 1987 is set aside. I fix the maintenance at Rs. 400/- per month. I future direct that the respondent should pay to the petitioner Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance with effect from April 1, 1987. All arrears from April 1, 1987 till August 31, 1988 shall be paid in four equal instalments of Rs. 1,700/- each. The first of such instalment shall be paid by October 30, 1988 and thereafter the balance shall be paid bi-monthly by the 30th of each second month i.e. to say on 30th December, 1988, the last day of February 1989 and 30th of April, 1989. I further direct that as from September 1, 1988 the respondent shall pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and the same shall be paid on or before September 26, 1988 and thereafter by the 26th of each succeeding month. On account of costs, I direct that initially the respondent should pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the petitioner, on or before 30th November, 1988. All the amounts required to be paid as above, be either paid to the petitioner directly or the same shall be deposited in the Bombay City Civil Court. If the amounts are deposited in the Bombay City Civil Court, the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the same and the registrar to pay the same on the minutes of this order. Rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute. -----