S. K. Mahajan, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition as indigent persons for the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000. 00 p. m. For the period October 1993 to February 1995, a sum of Rs. 2,55,000. 00 has been claimed in the petition. This order will dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of interim maintenance till the matter is finally decided by the Court. The facts giving rise to the petition are : - ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 and respondent were married in accordance with Hindu Rites on October 21, 1977. From the wedlock of the parties, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were born on October 25; 1983 and February 14, 1990. The parties could not reconcile with each other as a result of which they separated. Since about October, 1993 parties are living separately. In November, 1993 the parties filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent by a decree of divorce. The statement of the parties was recorded by the Court on November 12; 1993. After the statement was recorded, the Court passed an order that in view of the provisions of Section 12-B (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage of the parties cannot be dissolved before the expiry of six months. During this period of six months, the parties were advised to make attempts to resolve their differences and in case the differences proved to be irreconcilable, the parties were given liberty to revive the application by moving a second motion petition under Section 13-B (ii) of the Act after the expiry of six months but before the lapse of 18 months from the date of filing of that petition. The parties, however, did not file a second motion petition under Section 13-B (ii) of the Act and consequently the marriage has not been dissolved by a decree of divorce. ( 3 ) ALONG with the petition in the Court of Additional District Judge, the parties had also filed an agreement, terms of which were as under :- "and WHEREAS the First party has the following immovable properties : I) Approximately 2 acres of cultivable land unencumbered in Village Kakroi, District Sonepat. II) One residential house constructed in village Kakroi, District Sonepat. II) One residential house constructed in village Kakroi, District Sonepat. III) 2 acres and 65 cents of Agricultural land in Revenue village Poothurai District south Arcort in Vanur Taluk. AND WHEREAS the first party also owns a Maruti car having Registration No. DDA-1890. And whereas there are certain movable properties including gold, pledged to bank redeemable on payment of Rs. 27,000. 00 alongwith interest, diamond ear rings, music system, one luna moped, a teak wood cuisine, one credenza, various books, one sony television, one National VCR, one double door fridge, one bullet motor cycle, one Birla Yamaha Generator set and other house hold goods including kitchen appliances, etc. THE parties have, arrived at the following agreement to settle their all the disputes including the maintenance of the Second party as well as that of children and the custody of the children. 1. The first party has agreed that the second party shall have absolute right to sell the above mentioned immovable properties and the proceeds thereof shall be utilised by the second party for the maintenance of the children. The second party shall be at liberty to utilise the consideration so received in the manner as deemed fit and proper by her. The first party has agreed to help and cooperate in disposal of these properties expeditiously. 2. The parties have further agreed that all the above mentioned movable properties including car bearing Registration No. DDA-1890 except bullet motor cycle and the luna moped shall be the absolute property of the second party and she will be entitled to deal with the said movable properties in the manner she likes. 3. The bullet motor cycle and the luna moped which are in the name of the first party shall be his absolute property. 4. In case the second party wants to retain the Maruti Van the first party has agreed to apply for transfer of the same in her name. 5. Both the sons shall remain in the custody of the second party. However, the first party shall be entitled to have the custody of the children for 2 periods of 15 days in a year and the second parly has agreed not to create any obstacle in this regard. 6. 5. Both the sons shall remain in the custody of the second party. However, the first party shall be entitled to have the custody of the children for 2 periods of 15 days in a year and the second parly has agreed not to create any obstacle in this regard. 6. The parties have further agreed that the sale proceeds received from the above mentioned properties shall also be utilised to repay the loans taken from the bank and to redeem the gold pledged with the bank. 7. On implementation of this agreement, the second party and/or children shall have no further right to claim alimony or maintenance or any other expenses from the first party on any account whatsoever. 8. The first party has agreed to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of the second party authorising her to sell, transfer or alienate in any manner whatsoever the above mentioned immovable and movable properties. "( 4 ) THIS agreement was subsequently not complied with by the parties and it is alleged that the respondent repudiated the same in January, 1994. It is alleged that respondent came to the house of the petitioner and took away the Maruti Van on the pretext of taking his mother to the hospital. It-is further alleged that the respondent has taken certain loans from banks and he extracted a large sum of money from the petitioner No. 1 to clear all the said debts and it was only after the said debts were cleared by the respondent with the money provided by the petitioner No. l that he turned dishonest and refused to abide by his part of the agreement. Maruti Van is alleged to be exclusively owned by petitioner No. l. The petitioner No. l apprehending that the respondent would remove the children from her custody, has filed this petition for an injunction restraining the respondent from removing the children from her custody and also for directing him to hand over the Maruti Van to petitioner No. 1. Maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000. Maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000. 00 has also been claimed by the petitioner as according to her she has been unable to take regular employment on account of her looking after the children, though she had been able to take some small time job works which she executed in spare time while the children were at school, however, she was unable to make both ends meet on her own and was rendered dependent upon her aged, ailing and retired father for maintenance, support and shelter. It is stated that the respondent is duty bound to maintain the petitioners. It is alleged that he is presently getting a salary of Rs. 30,000. 00 p. m. and besides that he is also getting income from his ancestral properties to the tune of almost Rs. 20,000. 00 p. m. On these allegations, the petitioner wanted this Court to fix a maintenance of Rs. 15,000. 00 p. m. for all the petitioners. ( 5 ) ALONG with the petition, an application for interim injunction as well as another application for grant of interim maintenance was filed by the petitioners. This Court by order dated February 23, 1995 restrained the respondent from removing the custody of the children from possession of the petitioner and also from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the properties mentioned in the application. ( 6 ) ON being served with the petition, the respondent has filed reply to the main petition as well as to the interim applications. ( 7 ) THE main objection taken in the reply is that the petitioner No. 1 is doing business under the name and style of "m/s. Joy Art" from W-38, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi jointly with one Mr. Raman Kapur and she has more than sufficient income from the said business. It is stated that the petitioner cannot be said to be an indigent per son as contemplated by Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also alleged that the petitioner had been abroad at least two times in the last one and a half years which proves that the petitioner is financially sound. Allegations have also been made about the petitioner s having decided to live in Pondicherry and her believing in astrology, however, they are not relevant for decision of this application. It is also alleged that the petitioner had been abroad at least two times in the last one and a half years which proves that the petitioner is financially sound. Allegations have also been made about the petitioner s having decided to live in Pondicherry and her believing in astrology, however, they are not relevant for decision of this application. It is also alleged that the petitioner has admitted her having visited Bangkok in June, 1995 for purposes of business. Reliance has been placed by the respondent on the deed of partnership dated February 10, 1994 which has been placed on record by the petitioner herself under which the petitioner had started the work in partnership with Mr. Raman Kapur. According to him, this partnership has not yet been dissolved and the petitioner has deliberately concealed this fact of her working in partnership with Mr. Raman Kapur and has also not disclosed her income. ( 8 ) AS per the salary certificate placed on record by the respondent, his total gross salary is Rs. 27,371. 00 p. m. From out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 4,500. 00 is deducted as income-tax and a sum of Rs. 1,118. 00 is deducted towards contribution to provident fund. Besides this a sum of Rs. 1,390. 00 is being repaid towards loan having been received by the respondent for some contingency and another sum of Rs. 4,497. 00 is deducted towards repayment of housing loan. The total carry home salary of the respondent, therefore, has been shown as Rs. 15,821. 00. Besides, the. petitioners, only other person who is dependent upon the respondent and whom the respondent is obliged to maintain is his mother who is not well. ( 9 ) THE respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment reported as S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 in support of his contention that the respondent has deliberately concealed the fact of her doing business and she is, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance. Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the respondent, has referred to the letter dated 27th June, 1995 written by petitioner No. 1 to the respondent. In this letter the respondent has complained that during the time she was out on busin ess, the respondent without her knowledge had taken the children away to his house. Mr. Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the respondent, has referred to the letter dated 27th June, 1995 written by petitioner No. 1 to the respondent. In this letter the respondent has complained that during the time she was out on busin ess, the respondent without her knowledge had taken the children away to his house. Mr. Narula, therefore, submits that the fact that the petitioner had herse admitted that she had gone out on business means that she had visited Bangkok for purposes of her business which she was doing in partnership. Ms. Mittal, however, in reply has stated that she has explained in her rejoinder the circumstances in which she had gone to Bangkok. What has been stated by her in the rejoinder is that:- "the respondent is fully aware that Shri Kailash Nath Kathju, father of the petitioner No. 1 retired as the Dy. Managing Director of the Indian Airlines. By virtue of the said position, all the blood relatives of the said Mr. Kailash Nath Kathju, including his sisters, brothers, parents and all children are entitled to free passage on both Indian Airlines and Air India. The said benefit is available during this life time to the knowledge of the respondent. In the face of all the problems, especially the tremendous financial problem being faced by the petitioner, she was extremely in a depressed state of mind. The family of the petitioner No. 1 was very concerned about the dejection being felt by the petitioner No. 1. Two of her sisters namely Mrs. Nina Pawar and Mrs. Rita Kathju were planning a one day trip to Singapore. Mrs. Nina Pawar had some urgent work at Singapore. As they had already planned to go to Singapore in or about August 1994, leaving Delhi on 4-8-94 had made arrangements for their stay in Singapore. The said sisters of the petitioner No. l had forced her along with them and had borne the extra bed in their hotel room. No money was spent by the petitioner No. l on the said trip inasmuch as the tickets etc. , were completely free and whatever was spent on her one day stay with her sisters was shared between the two of her sisters. The petitioner No. 1 was in no means to bear the financial expenses involved had she had to hear the expenses of her trip. , were completely free and whatever was spent on her one day stay with her sisters was shared between the two of her sisters. The petitioner No. 1 was in no means to bear the financial expenses involved had she had to hear the expenses of her trip. So far as the allegation of the respondent with regard to her second trip abroad of the petitioner No. l concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had been associated with the National Association for the Blind at R. K. Puram, New Delhi. On the 12. 5. 1995 the petitioner No. 1 was requested by the Hony. General Secretary of the said Association vide a letter in writing to accompanya visually impaired (blind) Executive Officer of the said Association as an escort for the Review Meeting of the ESCAP in Bangkok from 22 to 30. 6. 1995. The said Association and its officials were fully aware of the financial straits of the petitioner No. 1. They were also aware of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 was entitled to free passage abroad on Air India by virtue of the above facility available to her on account of relationship to her father. Vide the letter dated 12. 5. 1995, the petitioner No. 1 was informed that the visually impaired Executive Director would have difficulty alone in Bangkok as English was not very popular and in view of the handicap needed an escort. The petitioner No. 1 had arranged for a free ticket from the 22 to 30. 6. 1995 to Bangkok taking advantage of the facility available to her father and her entire expenses including the visa fee and expenditure of stay were looked after by the National Association for the Blind and their Executive Director jointly as stated in the letter dated 12. 5. 1995. It is pertinent to mention that the National Association for the Blind is aided by the Government of India. The President of India is the Patron in Chief of the said Association, which is engaged in looking after the interests of blind persons in India. As such, the petitioner No. 1 did not bear any expenses towards any trip abroad. The averments of the respondent are totally false to the knowledge of the respondent. The President of India is the Patron in Chief of the said Association, which is engaged in looking after the interests of blind persons in India. As such, the petitioner No. 1 did not bear any expenses towards any trip abroad. The averments of the respondent are totally false to the knowledge of the respondent. The petitioner No. 1 has been involved as working as a consultant in Braille Printing Unit of the Organisation and associated with compilation and designing of their publications and their awareness literature and general co-ordinations. It is incorrect and denied that the petitioner is in a financial position to pay the court fees. The trip to Bangkok was by no means in the nature of a pleasure trip. The petitioner No. 1 was totally involved in looking after and assisting Miss Anuradha who she was escorting and attending the meetings etc. , of ESCAP with her. The petitioner No. 1 also made no money from the said trip. " ( 10 ) AT this stage, I will not be able to hold whether the said trips by petitioner No. 1 to Singapore and Bangkok were for purposes of her business or were for the reasons stated in her rejoinder. Prima facie, on the basis of the documents placed on record, it appears that the said trips had not been taken for purposes of business. The business mentioned in letter of June 27, 1995 cannot be said to mean that it was the business for profit. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Narula at this stage that petitioner No. 1 had concealed any business which she is allegedly doing. ( 11 ) IT is not disputed that the respondent is duty bound to maintain the children. In fact, Mr. Narula has offered to pay total expenses of the children which they are incurring for tuition fee to the school, dress and clothes, etc. ( 12 ) IN Pradeep Kumar Kapoor Vs. Ms. Shailja Kapoor, AIR 1989 Delhi 10, it was held that while granting maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings, the Court has to act in accordance with sound judicial principles and cannot act in a arbitrary fashion. ( 12 ) IN Pradeep Kumar Kapoor Vs. Ms. Shailja Kapoor, AIR 1989 Delhi 10, it was held that while granting maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings, the Court has to act in accordance with sound judicial principles and cannot act in a arbitrary fashion. Court laid down the following principles which appears to be relevant for the said purpose : - " (1) Position and status of the parties; (2) reasonable wants of the claimant (towards food, clothing, shelter, medical attendance and treatment, education and the like); (3) income of the claimant; (4) income of the opposite party; (5) number of persons opposite party is obliged to maintain. Two corollaries may be added here : (1) In arriving at the income of a party only involuntary deductions like income-tax, provident fund contribution, etc. , are to be excluded; and (2) though under the law opposite party may not be obliged to maintain brother or sister but if that brother or sister having no income is living with the opposite party as member of his family and where either there are no parents or are unable to maintain themselves, the Court may in a given circumstance consider the expenses to be incurred on the maintenance of brother or sister by the opposite party. After all, Court cannot be expected to adopt a mechanical approach while interpreting the provisions of law incorporating principles of social justice like S. 24 of the Act. " ( 13 ) IN Baby Rashmi Mehra and Another Vs. Sunil Mehra and Others, AIR 1991 Delhi 44, this Court had held that the quantum of maintenance depends upon the position and status of the parties including financial position of the husband as also on the reasonable demands of the claimants. ( 14 ) IN Dev Dutt Singh Vs. Smt. Rajni Gandhi, AIR 1984 Delhi 320, it was held that maintenance has to be fixed according to the standing of the parties, their wealth and environment to which they in their married state have been accustomed. ( 15 ) WHILE determining the income of the husband, the consistent view of the Courts is that from out of the total income, the only amount which is liable to be deducted is income-tax and the provident fund. ( 15 ) WHILE determining the income of the husband, the consistent view of the Courts is that from out of the total income, the only amount which is liable to be deducted is income-tax and the provident fund. After deducing income-tax and the provident fund from the total income of the respondent, net income which can be considered for purposes of grant of maintenance comes to Rs. 21,653. 00. Admittedly, old mother of the respondent is dependent upon him. ( 16 ) THE question is as to whether petitioner No. 1 is also having any income. Stress has been laid by learned counsel for the respondent upon the partnership deed which had been entered into between petitioner No. 1 and Mr. Raman Kapur. Mr. Narula has also placed reliance upon the fact that admittedly petitioner No. 1 was doing the business of hand painted cards which cards are being sold from shops in five star hotels. The petitioner in reply to these allegations has not denied that she was doing some work of hand painted greeting cards and as orders for the same were being obtained by Mr. Raman Kapur, she entered into a partnership with him on February 10, 1994. The capital of the firm was Rs. 10,000. 00 and the petitioner was doing business from her residence. The firm was maintaining a bank account No. 2256 with the Bank of Rajasthan Limited and she had hardly been able to earn anything from the said business. My attention has been drawn to the statement of account of the said firm with the Bank of Rajasthan Limited. After opening the account. with a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 on February 10, 1994, total amount which has been deposited in the said account is not more than Rs. 11,000. 00. This amount has been deposited during the period February 13, 1994 to December 12, 1995. Though, a sum of about Rs. 11,000. 00 have been deposited in this account through clearing, however, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner must have been selling these cards in cash as well. 11,000. 00. This amount has been deposited during the period February 13, 1994 to December 12, 1995. Though, a sum of about Rs. 11,000. 00 have been deposited in this account through clearing, however, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner must have been selling these cards in cash as well. In the first instance the petitioner has not mentioned in the plaint about carrying on the business and it was only in the rejoinder by way of reply to the allegations made in the written statement that the petitioner has admitted her having doing some odd jobs in the name and style of "m/s. Joy Art". I am, therefore, of the opinion that petitioner No. 1 is working for gain and is dealing in hand painted cards. Exact income of petitioner No. 1 from the said business cannot be easily ascertained, however, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I assess the income of petitioner No. 1 tentatively at Rs. 2,000. 00 p. m. for purposes of deciding the applications. ( 17 ) THE petitioner No. l has claimed the school fee and transportation of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 at Rs. 2,500. 00 p. m. Petitioner has placed on record the circular of the school demanding fee from students. As per this circular besides the annual charges of Rs. l,000. 00 each student is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 towards tuition fee and food charges for every four months, transportation charges of Rs. 195. 00 per month are payable extra. In my opinion, the amount claimed towards school fee and transportation charges of both the petitioners 2 and 3 is reasonable. Petitioners 2 and 3 are also entitled to the grant of maintenance not only for purposes of expenses of food but also for dress and other clothes. In my opinion, a sum of Rs. l,000. 00 p. m. each for both the petitioners 2 and 3 will be sufficient for their dress and food, etc. A one time expense ofRs. 6,000. 00 every year (Rs. 500. 00 p. m.) may also be required by the children for purchase of books, stationery and other incidental expenses. In my opinion, a sum of Rs. l,000. 00 p. m. each for both the petitioners 2 and 3 will be sufficient for their dress and food, etc. A one time expense ofRs. 6,000. 00 every year (Rs. 500. 00 p. m.) may also be required by the children for purchase of books, stationery and other incidental expenses. ( 18 ) IN arriving at a figure for the maintenance and support of the wife, regard must be had not only to the income of the parties-but also to the number of persons which the parties are obliged to maintain. The only person dependent upon the respondent is his old mother. The respondent is expected to spend a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 to 4,000. 00 on her ailing mother. Taking this amount from out of the total income of the respon- dent, a sum of about Rs. 18,000. 00 still remains available with the respondent. It is from out of this amount that this Court has to determine the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioners. As I have already held that prima facie the petitioner No. 1 appears to be carrying on business and has the net income of about Rs. 2,000. 00 p. m. , I am not inclined to grant any maintenance at this stage in favour of petitioner No. 1. However, this income of petitioner No. 1 is not sufficient to maintain petitioners 2 and 3. It is not disputed that respondent is duty bound to maintain petitioners 2 and 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to the position, status and financial position of the respondent and the amount available with the respondent, I feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding a total sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 as maintenance per month in favour of petitioners 2 and 3. ( 19 ) I, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to petitioners 2 and 3 through petitioner No. 1 a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 per month from the date of filing this petition as interim maintenance till the decision of the main petition. I also direct the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 to meet litigation expenses. 5,000. 00 per month from the date of filing this petition as interim maintenance till the decision of the main petition. I also direct the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 to meet litigation expenses. ( 20 ) ANOTHER question which remains to be decided is, whether the respondent can be restrained from removing the petitioners 2 and 3 from the custody, of petitioner No. 1. The respondent is the father of petitioners 2 and 3 and it cannot be said that he is not interested in the welfare of his children and may also be entitled to periodical meetings with them till such time they are living with their mother, petitioner No. 1. However, in my opinion, respondent is not entitled to forcibly remove the petitioners 2 and 3 from the custody of petitioner No. l, with whom they are presently living. Respondent has a remedy open to him in law to seek custody of his children, however, he cannot be allowed to take law in his own hands nor can he be allowed to remove the children forcibly from the custody of petitioner No. 1, with whom they are presently living. I, therefore, restrain the respondent from forcibly removing petitioners 2 and 3 from the custody of petitioner No. 1 till the disposal of this petition. This, however, will not preclude the respondent from taking steps, as he may be advised to take for seeking custody of petitioners 2 and 3 in accordance with law. ( 21 ) WITH these observations, both the applications stands disposed of. ( 22 ) ANY observations made in this order will not affect the merits of the case.