Judgment 1. Challenge in this revision is to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 14-11-1998 vide which the respondent Kuldip Kaur has been granted Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Kuldip Kaur had filed a petition praying for a decree of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage act against her husband Sawinderjit Singh. During the pendency of the said petition, the wife filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Act praying for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 12-5-1978 according to Hindu rites. The applicant claimed that she owned no moveable or immovable property and she had no independent source of income. The husband is stated to be working as a Clerk in the Industries Department of Guru Nanak Dev University and is drawing a salary of more than Rs. 5000/- per month and as such she prayed for grant of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The husband contested this application while admitting the factum of marriage and his employment. He contended that the wife was running a beauty parlour at Amrit-sar and her income was more than Rs. 10,000/- per month and she had a rental income also. Resultantly, the husband prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the application of the wife to the limited extent afore-noticed. The husband felt aggrieved from the said order and preferred the present revision. 4. From the impugned order it is apparent that during the course of hearing the husband had produced his salary certificate which shows that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 8868/-, from which he was getting deductions to the extent of Rs. 6107/- from his salary towards various savings and return of house building loan. The wife was also looking after a minor son and a minor daughter in addition to maintaining herself in the high prices of today. Except making the allegations against the wife in regard to her income etc. the petitioner had not placed any document or affidavit of any other person to show that the wife was actually earning what had been averred against her. Except making the allegations against the wife in regard to her income etc. the petitioner had not placed any document or affidavit of any other person to show that the wife was actually earning what had been averred against her. Even if it was so, the obligation of the petitioner-husband to maintain his minor children would always be there. Even for the sake of arguments it is assumed that wife has some source of income, that per say would not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance for herself and more particularly for her children from the marriage. Meagre income of the wife cannot be treated as an absolute bar for claiming maintenance from her husband. At this stage it may be relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam V/s. Sh. Sanjay Chopra, Civil Misc. No. 17-M of 1999 in F.A.O.No. 168-M of 1998 decided on 9-9-1999 (reported in 1999 (2) Pun LR 593) where the Court held as under :- "Even if she is doing some tuition work and making efforts to make her both ends meet, in the present day of high costs of living, this cannot operate as a bar for her to claim maintenance from her husband. The wife is entitled to enjoy the same status, socially and financially, which she would have enjoyed if she would have continued to live with her husband." Similar view was taken by another Bench of this Court in case of Seema V/s. Devinder Vohra, 1992 (1) HLR 322. 5 The husband could also not take advantage of the heavy deductions from his salary as almost all these deductions were voluntary and were primarily on account of savings or house construction loan taken by the husband. The order of the learned Additional District Judge granting Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant-wife can no way be treated as unreasonable or unfair. On the contrary, the amount is meagre at the face of it. 6. For these reasons I would decline to interfere in the impugned order and dismiss the revision with costs, which are assesed at Rs. 1000/-.Revision dismissed.