S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) THE petitioner-wife is alleged to have been deserted by the respondent-husband on 1st May, 1989. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 for grant of maintenance. The petition has been filed as an indigent person. As per the allegations made in the petition, the respondent is an official of Punjab and Sind Bank since 1976 and is drawing a salary of about Rs. 6,000. 00 - p. m. ; that he is also one-half owner of the bungalow being No. B-1/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi which has been let out to US Aid at a rent of Rs. 40,000. 00 p. m. It is also stated that some other properties have also been inherited by the respondent after the death of his father jointly with his sister. On these allegations, the petitioner states that on a conservative estimate the income of the respondent is about Rs. 64,560. 00 p. m. and there is no person except the petitioner who is dependent upon him. It is stated that the respondent is duty bound to maintain the petitioner, as she is his legally wedded wife and the petitioner in the present petition has claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,0007. 00 p. m. from the respondent. ( 2 ) ALONG with the petition, an application for interim maintenance has also been made almost on the same allegations and it is prayed that till the decision of the main petition, the respondent be directed to pay at least a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 p. m. by way of interim maintenance. ( 3 ) WRITTEN statement has been filed by the respondent and it is alleged that the lists of properties filed by the petitioner are wholly false and the petitioner has also not disclosed the valuable properties which are owned by her and according to the respondent, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. It is alleged that the petitioner is the owner of one SFS flat being No. 152, MB Road, New Delhi of the value of approximately Rs. 16,00,000/- and as per his information the flat has been disposed of fraudulently by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner is the owner of one SFS flat being No. 152, MB Road, New Delhi of the value of approximately Rs. 16,00,000/- and as per his information the flat has been disposed of fraudulently by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner is self-employed and is capable of earning being an educated lady and she is working as a beautician earning about Rs. 3,000. 00 p. m. It is also stated that petitioner is getting a regular monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 - p. m. in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she was also getting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 p. m. w. e. f. 1st October, 1989 in proceedings which have been filed, for the grant of divorce in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. It is. further stated that the respondent is no-doubt one-half owner of the building in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, however, his share of rent from the said house is stated to be Rs. 9,000. 00 p. m. w. e. f. 28th February, 1994. The said rent is subject to the deductions of maintenance/repairs and payment of house tax. According to the respondent, there is no other property of the respondent and (he total income of the respondent is, therefore, stated to be about Rs. 15. 000. 00 p. m. ( 4 ) ON the basis of material on record, I am not, at this stage, in a position to hold that the respondent is having income from any other source and that the income of the respondent is more than Rs. 15,000. 00 p. m. which has been disclosed by him in the written statement. Prima-facie,-1 am taking this amount as the income of the respondent for purposes of deciding the application for grant of interim maintenance. From out of this income, the respondent must be incurring expenses for maintenance of the property and must also be paying house tax. Deducting one month s rent towards repairs and another two months rent towards payment of house tax, the respondent has in his hands about Rs. 80,000. 00 per annum as income from the house property. Adding this to the amount of about Rs. 6,000. 00 p. m. which is the salary of the respondent, his income comes to about Rs. Deducting one month s rent towards repairs and another two months rent towards payment of house tax, the respondent has in his hands about Rs. 80,000. 00 per annum as income from the house property. Adding this to the amount of about Rs. 6,000. 00 p. m. which is the salary of the respondent, his income comes to about Rs. 12,500/- p. m. The respondent must be paying income tax on the income which he is getting both from the salary as well as from the house property. Deducting roughly about Rs. 2,500/- p. m. as the income-tax on this amount, his income would be around Rs. 10,000. 00 -p. m. ( 5 ) WHILE -determining the income of the husband, (he consistent view of the Courts is that from out of the total income the only amount which is liable to be deducted is the income tax and the provident fund. The employer of the respondent must be deducting some provident fund from his salary and taking that provident fund at the minimum of 8%, a sum of about Rs. 500. 00 must have been deducted from his salary every month. No salary certificate has been placed on record by any of the parties and I, therefore, take the provident fund at the minimum of Rs. 500. 00 p:m. The net income of the respondent, therefore, comes to Rs. 9,500. 00 p. m. It is from this income that I have to determine as to what should be the reasonable maintenance which (he petitioner is entitled from the* respondent. ( 6 ) THERE is nothing on record to hold that the petitioner is self employed or has any income for her sustenance. At this stage, it is also not possible to hold that the petitioner is the owner of property being SFS flat No. 152, MB Road, New Delhi or that she is getting any income therefrom. For the purposes of deciding this application, I am prima-facie of the opinion that the petitioner does not have any income of her own. ( 7 ) IN arriving at a figure for maintenance to support the wife, regard must be had not only to the income of the parties but also the number of persons which the parties are obliged to maintain. ( 7 ) IN arriving at a figure for maintenance to support the wife, regard must be had not only to the income of the parties but also the number of persons which the parties are obliged to maintain. As already observed above, the respondent has not been able to show whether there is any person besides the petitioner who is dependent upon him and whom the respondent is obliged to support from out of his income. The quantum of maintenance depends upon the position and status of the parties including financial position of the husband as also the reasonable demands of the claimant. ( 8 ) THE respondent was paying a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 p. m. as maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings, which are stated to have been dismissed as withdrawn and this amount was besides the amount of Rs. 500. 00 p. m. which the petitioner is getting as maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met in case the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 p. m. to the petitioner as interim maintenance besides the amount ofrs. 500/ - which she is already getting as maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) I, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum ofrs. 2,000/- p. m. from the date of filing of this petition as interim maintenance till the final decision of the main petition. ( 10 ) ANYTHING observed in this order will not affect the merits of the case. ( 11 ) IA stands disposed of.