M. S. A. SIDDIQUI ( 1 ) THIS revision petition arise out of an application under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage , Act (here in after REFERRED TO to as the Act) moved by the petitioner/wife in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act launched against her by her husband respondent here in. In her application she claimed Rs. 5000. 00 towards litigation expenses and Rs. 1500 per month as maintenance amount for her and her child. On a consideration of the material available on the record, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent s total income was Rs. 2300. 00 permonth. The Trial Court, therefore, fixed Rs. 300 per month as maintenance pendente lite to be payable to the wife, Rs. 150 per month to be payable to the minor child and Rs. 1500 as litigation expenses. The petitioner has come up in revision submitting that the impugned order has been passed illegally in as much as no reason has been stated as to how the Trial Court came to fix the maintenance as it had fixed and, in any case, it has arrived at the figure of the husband s income by ignoring vital facts. ( 2 ) IN assessing the quantum of maintenance, the learned Trial Court was priamrily influnced by the salary of the husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, on the strength of the decision rendered in Santosh Kumari Vs. Kishan Kumar 1979 (Vol V) Page 60 HLR has asserted that the learned Trial Court has given no reason or basis for fixing the maintenance and litigation expenses and as such the impugned order is arbitrary and without the application of mind. ( 3 ) IT cannot be questioned that, in principle in a case like this, the wife and her child are entitled during the pendency of the proceedings to an allowance for support and also to a lump grant towards her expenses in the proceedings. Here it is a provisional arrangement to enable her and her child to keep themselves alive till the final orders in the proceedings and also contest, if she chooses, the suit filed by her husband. ( 4 ) THE question which arises for consideration is whether the amount of maintenance of Rs. 300. 00 per mensem granted to the wife and Rs. 150. ( 4 ) THE question which arises for consideration is whether the amount of maintenance of Rs. 300. 00 per mensem granted to the wife and Rs. 150. 00 per mensem granted to the child and a sum of Rs. 1500. 00 towards legal expenses, requires to be enhanced. The Hindu Marriage Act has not set any limit to the interim maintenance awardable under section 24. Section 24 speaks of fixing a reasonable amount. Reasonableness itself is no doubt a relative term. Essentially the question is one of balancing several competing claims. The amount of maintenance that one spouse may be ordered to pay to the other must be such as appears to be reasonable and the court in exercise of its discretion under Section 24 must have regard to the petitioner s own income and the income of the respondent. While determining the quantum of maintenance the court has not only to take into consideration the income of the petitioner and the respondent provided in the Section but also relevant facts and circumstances in the case including the conduct of the parties. The discretion under Section 24 has to be exercised on sound principles of Matrimonial Law and within the ambit of the provisions of the section and having regard to the object of the Act. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel of the petitioner, relying upon the decision in Radhikabai Vs Sadharam AIR 1970 M. P. 14, contended that the respondent s income should be devided into three equal portions and two third thereof should be awarded to the wife and her child. I am unable to proceed on this basis. In my opinion, their can t be any hard and fast rule for directing payment of l/5th or l/3rd of the income of the husband. In Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajendra Malhotra AIR 1994, Delhi 234, it has been held that there can be no precise or settled farmulae to assess the quantum of interim maintenance. Each case depends upon its own facts. What is reasonable amount must differ from case to case. Neither a minimum nor a maximum percentage of the respondent s income can be fixed for the maintenance allowance. The quantum must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. Each case depends upon its own facts. What is reasonable amount must differ from case to case. Neither a minimum nor a maximum percentage of the respondent s income can be fixed for the maintenance allowance. The quantum must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It has to be borne in mind that interim maintenance proceedings can t be equated with proceedings akin to partition and possession of a share in family properties. What is envisaged under Section 24 or under Section 26 of the Act is making provision for support of the spouse and the maintenance of child and not a division of the income earned by the other spouse. It is not a suit for partition or for grant of permanent alimony. It is only for supporting the wife or the child during the pendency of a proceeding under the Act. The quantum has to be determined by ascertaining what is required to support the person claiming the amount under Section 24 or 26 and not wholly with reference to number of persons that are clamining. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY. the respondent is working as a storekeeper in the Central Vehicle Depot, Kirvi place, Delhi Cantt. According to the petitioner, the respondent is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 2500. 00. On the contrary, the respondent contended that his carry home salary is Rs. 2000. 00 per month. Learned Trial Court has estimated the respondent s income from salary at Rs. 2300. 00 per month. It has to be borne in mind that the grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should bear a reasonable relation to the income of the respondent and for fixing the quantum, it is only the net or disposable income of the respondent thai should be taken into account. The awardable amount should normally be restricted to the actual needs of the petitioner and it should not be on a very parsimonious or miserly scale. ( 7 ) THE petitioner being the wife of the respondent is entitled to receive maintenance. It is obvious that the petitioner requires money for her food and clothing etc. Besides this, the petitioner has to maintain her child and some money is required, therefor. If these facts are taken with consideration, the sum ofrs. ( 7 ) THE petitioner being the wife of the respondent is entitled to receive maintenance. It is obvious that the petitioner requires money for her food and clothing etc. Besides this, the petitioner has to maintain her child and some money is required, therefor. If these facts are taken with consideration, the sum ofrs. 300/ - per mensem granted by the learned Trial Court towards interim maintenance can t be said to reasonable. Keeping in view the hard days, the said amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 500. 00 per mensem. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 500. 00 per mensem as maintenance under Section 24 of the Act from the date on which she moved her application for maintenance. As far as the amount awarded towards the maintenance of the child and the litigation expenses is concerned, I do not think any modification therein is called for. ( 8 ) THE revision petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.