CHAUDHRY ( 1 ) SHRI Ravinder Kumar Jain, petitioner in C. M. (M) 73/1989 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Smt. Poonam Jain, on the ground of cruelty. Smt. Poonam Jain moved an application before the trial Judge under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance. The application was contested by the petitioner. After considering the relevant contentions and the material placed on record by the parties, the trial court by order dated 2. 1,1989 came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the petitioner/husband was Rs. 3,500. 00. After considering the status of the wife he fixed a sum of Rs. 800. 00 per month towards maintenance pendentelite for the wife. He also fixed a sum of Rs. 350. 00 per month as maintenance for the child which is admittedly in the custody of the wife. The order was passed on 02/01/1989 which was made effective from the date of the application i. e. 15/03/1988. Rs. 1,650. 00 towards litigation expenses were also awarded to Smt. Poonam Jain. The petitioner/husband has assailed this order by way of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India i. e. C. M. (M) 13/1989, which is under disposal. ( 2 ) THE petition came up for admission before a Bench of this court on 16/01/1989. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent wife. By interim order it was directed that the petitioner would continue to deposit maintenance at Rs. 500. 00 per month for wife and Rs. 100. 00 per month for the child and litigation expenses at Rs. 1,000. 00. The petition is being contested on behalf of the wife. ( 3 ) THE order dated 02/01/1989 made by the trial court is also challenged by the wife by a separate petition being C. R. No. 369/1989. The parties were directed to file replies to both the petitions, which they have done. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the petition of the husband is concerned, I see no force in this petition. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the trial court. In my opinion the trial court after appreciating the relevant documents placed on the record by the parties came to the conclusion that the income of the husband was Rs. 3,500. 00 per month. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the trial court. In my opinion the trial court after appreciating the relevant documents placed on the record by the parties came to the conclusion that the income of the husband was Rs. 3,500. 00 per month. In my opinion the income of the husband has rightly been assessed at Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and I see no legal infirmity in this respect. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court legally erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 800. 00 per month to the wife and Rs. 350. 00 per month as maintenance for the child. In my opinion, under the circumstances, the trial court was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 800. 00 to the wife and Rs. 350. 00 to the child. I see no force in this petition and it fails. ( 5 ) IN the petition filed by the wife it is stated that the trial court should have awarded atleast Rs. 2,000. 00 to her towards her maintenance and Rs. 500. 00 for the maintenance of the child besides Rs. 5,000. 00 as litigation expenses. It was contended that the trial court wrongly assessed the income at Rs. 3,500. 00 whereas the income of the husband was to the extent of Rs. 50,000. 00 per year. ( 6 ) I have gone through the material placed on the record. I see no force in the contention of the wife that the income of the respondent was Rs. 50,000. 00 per month. Rather the trial court has assessed the income at Rs. 42,000. 00 per year. So far as the maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 800. 00 is concerned I am not inclined to interfere. The amount seems to be just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. So far as the maintenance for the child is concerned I am inclined to increase it. The maintenance for the child at the rate of Rs. 350. 00 per month was fixed in the year 1989 when the child was hardly six months old. Now the child is stated to be 4 years old. He has to be admitted in a school for education. Some expenses will have to be borne by the wife for the education of the child. 350. 00 per month was fixed in the year 1989 when the child was hardly six months old. Now the child is stated to be 4 years old. He has to be admitted in a school for education. Some expenses will have to be borne by the wife for the education of the child. In my opinion it will be just and fair if the maintenance for the child is increased from Rs. 350. 00 per month to Rs. 500. 00 per month. So, I modify the order of the trial court to this extent. However, it is made clear, that the increase from Rs. 350. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 per month shall be effective from the date of this order. The arrears will have to be paid @ Rs. 350. 00 per month. ( 7 ) IN the result, the C. M. (M) 13/1989 filed by the husband is dismissed. So far as the revision petition of the wife (C. R. No. 369/1989) is concerned it is partly allowed to the extent that the maintenance for the child is increased from Rs. 350. 00 per month to Rs. 500. 00 per month w. e. f. the date of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ( 8 ) THE husband has been making the payment in terms of the interim order dated 16. 1. 1989. He is required to pay the difference. I give the concession to the husband to pay the arrears by instalment of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month. The arrears should be paid on or before the 10th of every month. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 10. 8. 1993 and thereafter on or before 10th of each succeeding month. Both these petitions are disposed of accordingly.