Judgment 1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 10-1-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh allowing the application filed by the respondent under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, the Act) for grant of interim maintenance. The Additional District Judge allowed the application by granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500.00 (Rs. 1,500/- for respondent-wife and Rs. 1,000.00 for her minor daughter) from the date of the application. A sum of Rs. 5,000.00 was awarded as litigation expenses. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this revision petition are that the petitioner has filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act against the respondent-wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It is alleged, that respondent-wife was proceeded ex parte twice which was subsequently set aside. Respondent filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Act asserting that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 10,000.00 per month as he has been working as Continental Cook in the Hotel Mountview. Besides herself she was to maintain her minor daughter who is about 12 years. The Additional District Judge allowed the application by recording the following order : "Version of the respondent-husband that she is working in the school at Nilokheri is quite vague. He has not explained in which school she is working and in which capacity. Even in his affidavit presented in the Court on 9-1-2002, he has not made this position clear. No certificate from that school has been brought on the record showing that she is getting a salary of Rs. 4000-5000.00 per month. Similarly, it is not known whose cloths, applicant-wife is stitching and on that account she is earning not less than Rs. 3000-4000.00 per month. On the other hand, she has filed her affidavit stating in so many words that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter who is about 12 years old and is studying in the school. In these circumstances, prima facie it is difficult to hold that she is earning anything as has been alleged by the respondent-husband. So far as the allegation of desertion taken up by respondent-husband is concerned, it cannot be determined at this stage without evidence. In these circumstances, prima facie it is difficult to hold that she is earning anything as has been alleged by the respondent-husband. So far as the allegation of desertion taken up by respondent-husband is concerned, it cannot be determined at this stage without evidence. The question as to whether she has deserted him or not is a matter of evidence, which will be taken at the relevant stage. Provision of Sec. 24 of the Act has been made so that a spouse may not die of starvation and that he or she may be able to meet the expenses for litigation if he or she is unable to meet his requirements. As mentioned above, there is no document on the record showing that she has independent source of income or property to maintain herself and to maintain her minor daughter. No doubt, maintenance under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. has been fixed by the Magistrate for the applicant and her daughter, but this itself is no ground to disallow maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Remedies under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. and under Sec. 24 of the Act are quite independent. They are not relevant to each other. In this view of the matter, I get support from the observation of the Hon ble Judge Mohinder Kaur, wife of Gobind Singh V/s. Gobind Singh, (1990) 1 Hindu LR 273. Respondent-husband cannot take benefit of his own wrong. In case, he did not make payment of the maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. regularly and that now he is paying Rs. 2500.00 per month as arrears is no ground to hold that applicant-wife and her daughter are not entitled to maintenance pendente lite So far as maintenance pendente lite is concerned, applicant-wife can claim even for her minor daughter. For this, I am fortified by the observations of the Hon ble Judge in the case of Dr. R. K. Sood V/s. Usha Rani Sood, (1996) 2 Hindu LR 690. Admittedly, respondent-husband is working as Cook in a well known Hotel of Chandigarh. He has given evasive reply about his salary by stating that his carry home salary is only Rs. 4204.00 after deducting amount of 2500/- which is being deducted under the order of Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. He has not explained his total salary. Admittedly, respondent-husband is working as Cook in a well known Hotel of Chandigarh. He has given evasive reply about his salary by stating that his carry home salary is only Rs. 4204.00 after deducting amount of 2500/- which is being deducted under the order of Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. He has not explained his total salary. It being so, there can be no other inference than the one that his salary is certainly more than Rs. 6704.00 as explained by him in his reply if not exactly Rs. 10,000.00 per month. No doubt, he may be having liability to maintain his 16 years old son and old mother, yet he cannot wriggle out of the situation simply on this score that he is not liable to maintenance pendente lite to the applicant-wife and her daughter particularly when they are unable to maintain themselves and the applicant is unable to meet the litigation expenses. In the case of Sham Lal V/s. Dhanwanti, (1990) 1 Hindu LR 369, husband had income of Rs. 1500.00 per month and he was made liable to pay to the wife 1/3rd of his income as maintenance pendente lite. Keeping this criteria, income, status of the parties, the rising index of prices and the liabilities of the parties in view, I allow Rs. 3000.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite (Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 1000.00 for her minor daughter) to the applicant-wife from the respondent-husband from the date of filing the application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act till the day of disposal of petition under Sec. 13 of the Act. Besides this, he is ordered to pay Rs. 5000.00 towards litigation expenses. In this manner, application is partly allowed." 3. Assailing the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Shri P. S. Sarna, learned counsel has argued that the wife herself is working as a teacher and has independent source of income. He has further argued that income of the petitioner is very meagre and he has to maintain his old mother as well as 16 years old son. Therefore, awarding of Rs. 2,5000.00 (sic) for the wife and the daughter as interim maintenance is on higher side. 4. Having heard learned counsel and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that this petition is devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. Therefore, awarding of Rs. 2,5000.00 (sic) for the wife and the daughter as interim maintenance is on higher side. 4. Having heard learned counsel and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that this petition is devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel that the respondent-wife is employed cannot be accepted because neither before the Additional District Judge nor before this Court any evidence has been produced to show that she is working in a school at Nilokheri. Had that been so, a certificate could have been secured from that school as a testimony of that fact. However, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate that submission. Therefore, there is no hesitation in rejecting the argument. So far as the argument that the petitioner has to maintain old mother and 16 years old son, the same cannot be accepted because the wife also has to look after herself and maintain 12 years old daughter. The responsibility of the petitioner-husband as well as respondent-wife is on even keel. Therefore, this argument also does not merit acceptance. 5. No other argument has been addressed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.