Judgment : Petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P. 109 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. Reason for filing divorce petition was that his wife/respondent herein deserted him without reasonable cause. It is also alleged in the petition that the children born in the marriage are with petitioner and he is maintaining them. 3. Pending consideration of divorce petition, wife filed applications under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as I.A.Nos.236 and 237 of 1997 one for getting interim alimony and the other for litigation expenses. According to respondent herein, she is not having any means to maintain herself and children and she cannot conduct litigation without the assistance of others. Husband is bound to protect wife and children and she prayed for interim alimony. It is also alleged that petitioner is getting not less than Rs.7,000 per month as income. 4. For the said petition petitioner herein filed serious objections to contend that he take home only Rs.500 as salary or less and he cannot be asked to provide his wife beyond his capacity. He further alleged that children continue to be in his custody. 5. For the purpose of interlocutory applications lower court marked Exs.P1 to P11 and petitioner was examined as P.W.1 wife did not get herself examined nor produced documents. 6. After considering the entire evidence lower court held that petitioner is bound to provide maintenance to wife and children. Rs.1,000 was awarded to wife and another Rs.1,000 was awarded to two children whom are found to be in the custody of wife from 1998. Litigation expense was also awarded at Rs.1,500. The same is challenged in this revision petition by petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that wife has also initiated proceedings under Sec.125 of Criminal Procedure Code for getting maintenance and asking interim alimony under Sec.24 of Hindu Marriage Act amounts to initiation of parallel proceedings for the same purpose. It is further argued by learned counsel that he is not having any other means and he is getting only Rs.500 after all deductions and he should not be asked to pay Rs.2,000 per month to wife and children and another Rs.1,500 towards litigation expenses. 9. It is further argued by learned counsel that he is not having any other means and he is getting only Rs.500 after all deductions and he should not be asked to pay Rs.2,000 per month to wife and children and another Rs.1,500 towards litigation expenses. 9. Regarding the contention of petitioners counsel that there is parallel proceedings initiated by respondent before criminal court, lower court held that no evidence has been let in to substantiate the same. Learned counsel also was not in a position to substantiate the contention that another proceedings has been initiated by wife in criminal court. Assuming that proceedings has been initiated under Sec.125 of Criminal Procedure Code, I do not think that can be a circumstance which could be taken note of in deciding the application under Sec.24 of Hindu Marriage Act. If any amount has been awarded under Sec.125, Cr.P.C. that amount also could be adjusted while considering interim alimony. It was so held in the decision reported in Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary (1997(11 S.C.C. 286. Facts there are similar. In paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Judgment, their Lordships have held thus, “4. In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the wife sought alimony. It was granted at the rate of Rs.600 p.m. on 18. 1987, and the amount thereof was subsequently enhanced to Rs.800 p.m. 5. Sincethe husband failed to pay the amount of maintenance as aforesaid, the wife started recovery proceedings. The husband contended that the maintenance amount should be adjusted against the interim alimony and the Magistrate before whom the recovery proceedings were pending upheld the contention. The High Court, in the order which is under appeal, held that the Magistrate was in error in directing adjustment of the maintenance amount awarded under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. against the amount awarded under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. Weare of the view that the High Court was in error. The amount awarded under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same…“ 10. While considering the question of granting of interim alimony, Supreme Court had given certain guidelines which is reported in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997)7 S.C.C. 7 . While considering the question of granting of interim alimony, Supreme Court had given certain guidelines which is reported in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997)7 S.C.C. 7 . In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus, ”8. … No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate… “ The question then arises as to from which date the wife would be entitled to claim the enhanced amount of maintenance pendente lite. If the wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also the children of the marriage on the basis of the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the Act. Having thus filed the date as the filing of the petition for divorce it is not always that the court has to grant the maintenance from that date . The Court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Sec.24 of the Act should be granted. The discretion of the Court would depend upon multiple circumstances which are to be kept in view. The Court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Sec.24 of the Act should be granted. The discretion of the Court would depend upon multiple circumstances which are to be kept in view. These could be the time taken to serve the respondent in the petition; the date of filing of the application under Sec.24 of the Act; Conduct of the parties in the proceedings; averments made in the application and the reply thereto; the tendency of the wife to inflate the income out of all proportion and that of the husband to suppress the same; and the like. There has to be honesty of purpose in both the parties which unfortunately we find lacking in this case. …” [Italics supplied] 11. The main contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that he take home salary of Rs.500 or less. Lower court has held that a major portion of his salary is deducted towards his savings and portion of amount he wanted to discharge his debts which he incurred. These cannot be taken into consideration while awarding maintenance. Only because he got capacity to discharge, big loan was availed by him. Merely because a loan has been availed of cannot be taken into consideration to consider the question of interim alimony. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and children being moral and statutory, none of these facts are to be taken into consideration. Financial position of husband has been taken note of by lower court in awarding interim alimony. It also found that even though children were with husband originally, but from 1998 onwards children are also maintained only by the wife. He has even discarded his parental duty towards his children. 12. The contention that wife has got other income is also without any basis and lower court has rightly rejected the same on the ground that except interested testimony of petitioner, no other reliable evidence has been let in. 13. Lower court has awarded only Rs.1,500 towards litigation expenses. It is only meagre amount taking into consideration present cost of litigation. Wife had to take assistance of another person to engage a lawyer, remain in court premises from morning to evening, etc… will have to be taken into consideration while awarding litigation expenses. The amount being meagre, no interference is called for in that regard. 14. It is only meagre amount taking into consideration present cost of litigation. Wife had to take assistance of another person to engage a lawyer, remain in court premises from morning to evening, etc… will have to be taken into consideration while awarding litigation expenses. The amount being meagre, no interference is called for in that regard. 14. I direct the lower court to see that the order passed by it is implemented in all its seriousness and only after husband pays entire amount till the main petition is taken up for trial, parties are allowed to proceed with trial. If there are arrears as on the date of trial, only after clearing all the arrears lower court shall proceed with main case. If petitioner fails to discharge his obligation as directed by this order, further proceedings in the main petition will stand stayed. Lower court is directed to implement this order in letter-and-spirit. 15. The revision petitions are dismissed as above, No Costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.5091 and 5092 of 2000 are also dismissed.