B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) IN Civil Revision Application No. 150 of 1989 my learned brother A. P. Ravani J by order dated 13/02/1989 issued rule returnable on 8/03/1989 and notice as to the hearing of interim relief was also made returnable on the same date. Mr. P. V. Nanavati appears on behalf of the respondent. Today the matter was placed before me for the purpose of hearing of the interim relief but with the consent of both the parties the revision application is heard on merits. ( 2 ) SIMILARLY Mr. Nanavati states that he has also filed a revision application against the same order and that is Civil Revision Application No. 528 of 1989. That revision application is also admitted and Miss Yagnik appears for Miss V. P. Shah Advocate for the respondent in the said matter. Hence both the revision applications are heard together. ( 3 ) THE present revision applications arise out of the order for interim alimony passed by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge Vadodara on 28/12/1988 in H. M. P. Case No. 132 of 1987. By the said order the learned Judge awarded Rs. 500. 00 per month to the applicant Shailaben Yogeshkumar Shah as maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application i. e. 13/08/1987 The further order speaks about the facility of instalments given to the opponent. ( 4 ) THE whole controversy is with regard to the amount of main- tenance. It may be stated that Rs. 200. 00 is awarded to the female child by way of maintenance by the Criminal Court in the application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and keeping that in mind the learned Judge has passed the order awarding Rs. 500. 00 per month to the present petitioner Shilaben Yogeshkumar Shah. It may be mentioned that looking to the pay slip of the opponent husband which is shown by Mr. Nanavati it is clear that the annual salary of the respondent comes to Rs. 63 0 Out of which he is getting certain amounts deducted i. e. Rs. 1239. 00 by way of Provident Fund Rs. 4796. 00 by way of L. I. C. and Rs. 7000. 00 in National Savings Certificate. Thereafter it is pointed out that he has purchased a car and by way of instalments he is paying Rs. 650. 63 0 Out of which he is getting certain amounts deducted i. e. Rs. 1239. 00 by way of Provident Fund Rs. 4796. 00 by way of L. I. C. and Rs. 7000. 00 in National Savings Certificate. Thereafter it is pointed out that he has purchased a car and by way of instalments he is paying Rs. 650. 00 and he had also taken loan from the Society and he is paying Rs. 1590. 00 plus Rs. 675. 00 by way of interest to the said Society. Therefore the total actual pay pocket which he carries home every month is Rs. 2431. 96 ps. p. m. It is clear from what is stated hereinabove that Provident Fund amount L. I. C. and N. S. C. are in fact savings and therefore that amount cannot be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the actual income. Similarly when the husband is enjoying the facility of car the maintenance to be awarded to the wife also should be of the same status as that of the husband and therefore it appears that the learned Assistant Judge has erred in properly reading the evidence led before him. The learned Judge has also not taken into consideration the fact that the female child who is with Shilaben is also now of the age of sending to K. G. School and a female child requires better dresses and therefore she would have more expenses. She cannot send her child to the school like a child of a pauper when her husband is living a decent life with a car. Under the circumstances it is desirable that at least from the date of the order passed by the trial Court i. e. from 28/12/1988 the respondent in Civil Revision Application No. 150 of 1989 Mr. Yogeshkumar Vithaldas pays to Shilaben Yogeshkumar Rs. 1500. 00 per month as maintenance pendente lite instead of Rs. 500. 00. It is clarified that the amount of Rs. 200. 00 which the child is getting as per the orders of the trial Court would be in addition to the amount of Rs. 1500. 00. So far as the arrears are concerned the arrears at the rate of Rs. 1500. 00 per month from 28/12/1988 to this date is directed to be paid by Mr. Yogeshkumar Vithaldas in two instalments. 00 which the child is getting as per the orders of the trial Court would be in addition to the amount of Rs. 1500. 00. So far as the arrears are concerned the arrears at the rate of Rs. 1500. 00 per month from 28/12/1988 to this date is directed to be paid by Mr. Yogeshkumar Vithaldas in two instalments. The first instalment to be paid on or before 31/10/1989 and the second instalment to be paid on or before 31/12/1989 The order passed by the trial Court is modified to the above extent. Rule is made absolute in Civil Revision Application No. 150 of 1989. Civil Revision Application No. 528 of 1989 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (KMV) Rule discharged. .