JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 4th January, 2003. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the non-petitioner took place on 20th February, 1990 and out of their wedlock, a daughter Vandana was born on 19th November, 1990. The non-petitioner submitted an application for grant of divorce before the Trial Court in which the divorce decree was granted on 27th May, 2000, but while passing the decree, no order for grant of maintenance was passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the non-petitioner along with her daughter submitted an application under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance for herself and her daughter. The non-petitioner in her application moved under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claimed maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 1,500/- per month for her daughter, total amounting to Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance amount. 3. In reply to the application under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner submitted reply stating therein that the non-petitioner is serving as a teacher in a public school and she is getting salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance amount as she is not a lady having no means to maintain herself and for her daughter. The petitioner submitted in the reply that he is prepared to take the custody of his daughter and he is prepared to maintain his daughter. 4. The Trial Court only on the ground that during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the non-petitioners/applicants were getting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month and there is no change in the circumstance, therefore, it will be appropriate to grant the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month only. It appears from the submissions of both the parties that another proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC is pending before the Trial Court wherein an amount of Rs. 500/- per month has been awarded in favour of the only daughter of the petitioner. In sum and substance, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the application only by taking into account the fact of the award of the maintenance on earlier occasion by observing that there is no change in the circumstance. 5. 500/- per month has been awarded in favour of the only daughter of the petitioner. In sum and substance, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the application only by taking into account the fact of the award of the maintenance on earlier occasion by observing that there is no change in the circumstance. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order dated 4th January, 2003 is absolutely illegal and it is absolutely unjust to award any amount of maintenance to the non- petitioner in view of the fact that admittedly non-petitioner is getting salary more than Rs. 7,000/- per month. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners admitted salary of the non-petitioner No. 1 to be Rs. 6,100/-. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the requirements under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting maintenance from the spouse are very clear and the jurisdiction to grant the maintenance is available only when the spouse proves that he or she has no income sufficient to maintain herself or himself. Until and unless this fact is proved, the Court cannot have any jurisdiction to grant the interim maintenance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Padama Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, reported in 1998 DNJ (Raj) 106. 6. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners submits that the petitioner who was husband of the non-petitioner No. 1 and father of the non-petitioner No. 2 is under legal obligation to give the maintenance to the non-petitioners. It is also submitted that when the non-petitioners were getting maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceeding then there appears to be no reason for interference by this Court in the impugned order dated 4th January, 2003 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 115, the scope of the Revisional Court is very limited and the Court should not interfere in the order of grant of maintenance. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder stated that during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the non- petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 1,000/- only, which according to learned Counsel for the non-petitioners, was about Rs. 1,800/- per month, therefore, the Trial Court granted the maintenance of Rs. 2,500/-. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder stated that during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the non- petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 1,000/- only, which according to learned Counsel for the non-petitioners, was about Rs. 1,800/- per month, therefore, the Trial Court granted the maintenance of Rs. 2,500/-. Now the non-petitioner is admittedly getting monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- and odd amount, therefore, the Trial Court's order deserves to be set aside only on the ground of non-consideration of change in the circumstance and the Trial Court specifically ignored this material fact and proceeded to hold that there is no change in the circumstance for award of the maintenance to the non-petitioners and thereby committed serious illegality. 8. I considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the order dated 4th January, 2003 passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not recorded finding of the fact that the non-petitioner No. 1 is not in a position to maintain herself. Obviously, the reason is that this is an admitted position of the non-petitioner No. 1 that she is in employment and getting salary of more than Rs. 6,000/- per month. Without recording any finding about the fact that the claimant is not in a position to maintain herself, the Court cannot acquire jurisdiction to award the maintenance and fix liability for payment of money, that too, periodically, per month. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside only on this ground alone. 9. The contention of learned Counsel for the non-petitioners that the petitioner is bound to maintain non-petitioner No. 1 and his daughter is absolutely contrary to the statu-tory provisions of law which requires and gives right to the claimants to get maintenance only when they are not in a position to maintain themselves. The non-petitioner No. 1 even could not point out how she could not maintain herself in a salary of more then Rs. 6,000/- per month. Until and unless the claimant prove that she is not in a position to maintain herself or she needs some more help for maintaining herself even after taking into account the amount which she or he is getting, the Court cannot grant maintenance or additional amount of maintenance after taking into account the amount which the claimant is already getting. Until and unless the claimant prove that she is not in a position to maintain herself or she needs some more help for maintaining herself even after taking into account the amount which she or he is getting, the Court cannot grant maintenance or additional amount of maintenance after taking into account the amount which the claimant is already getting. The statutory provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to be interpreted very liberally, but not to the extent of against the statutory provision and it cannot be held that a spouse can claim the maintenance even when it is admitted or proved, as a matter of fact, that she is in a position to maintain herself. That proposition will not only be just contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 24 and if such liberal view is taken, it is bound to be mis-used to harass the spouse. 10. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners submits that the petitioner is getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- and, therefore, the petitioner should pay the maintenance amount to the non- petitioners. The above request is also neither have any legal foundation nor any justification. When the Legislature thought it fit to provide sufficient provisions for grant of maintenance for the spouse and children, then only under those provi- sions, the claimants can claim their maintenance. The claimant cannot be treated as a partner in the income of the spouse so that the spouse may share the income of her husband or his wife merely on the ground that other is getting good amount of salary. It will be unjust because of the reason that the equity also requires that spouse or the children should not be left to die and the morality also requires the maintenance of the spouse and the children. The maintenance cannot be converted into source of earning of other spouse on the ground that other spouse is having good amount of income. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the non- petitioners that merely because the petitioner is getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- he should pay the amount. 11. The Trial Court has also not held that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- which the non-petitioner No. 1 is getting, is insufficient to maintain non-petitioner herself. 15,000/- he should pay the amount. 11. The Trial Court has also not held that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- which the non-petitioner No. 1 is getting, is insufficient to maintain non-petitioner herself. It will be further relevant to mention here that the non-petitioner is residing in the city of Ganganagar, which obviously has much less cost of living than the place where the petitioner is residing, which is at Delhi. The other relevant fact is that the non-petitioner No. 2, daughter of the petitioner, is getting Rs. 500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that the non-petitioner No. 1 is paying about Rs. 700/- per month against the education expenses of the non-petitioner No. 2, therefore, atlest the non-petitioner No. 2, is entitled for adequate maintenance from her father. So far as maintenance of daughter is concerned, it has its own independent merit in view of the fact that the daughter is admittedly not an earning member. In the circumstances, even if, the fact of earning of mother cannot be ignored, still the children's reasonable claim from their father cannot be refused because of the dispute between the parents the children should not suffer and, for that purpose, if there any hardship is caused to any of the parent, that is required to be suffered by the parent. The claim of the non-petitioner No. 1 for maintaining the non-petitioner No. 2, even if non-petitioner No. 1 is in a position to maintain her daughter, still if she is claiming something in the name of her daughter, that cannot be denied and should be provided by the father. The father, petitioner offered to keep the daughter with him, but the matter of custody is pending before the competent Court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, therefore, till any order is passed regarding the custody of the daughter to the parties, the petitioner cannot deny to maintain the daughter. 12. Looking to the totality of the facts that the non- petitioner No. 2 is getting Rs. 500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC and the mother non- petitioner No. 1 is getting salary of more than Rs. 12. Looking to the totality of the facts that the non- petitioner No. 2 is getting Rs. 500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC and the mother non- petitioner No. 1 is getting salary of more than Rs. 6,000/- per month, she can maintain herself and should maintain herself from her own earnings and if she demands something more than what her daughter is getting from her father, then this Court deems it proper to award certain amount of maintenance in favour of the daughter/ non-petitioner No. 2. This Court feels that since the non-petitioner No. 2 is getting Rs. 500/- only per month in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC, therefore, this amount is required to be increased after taking into account that, this is not the case of the non-petitioner No. 1 that she is not willing to provide lodging and food to the non-petitioner No. 2, it will be just to award Rs. 1,000/- per month to the non-petitioner No. 2 during pendency of application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act. 13. In view of the above discussions the maintenance awarded by the order dated 4th January, 2003 jointly Rs. 2,000/- per month to the non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to be set aside and it is held that the non-petitioner failed to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and in view of the additional fact that she will get the maintenance amount to maintain her daughter from the petitioner, she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance from the petitioner. It is held that non-petitioner No. 2 is not in position to maintain herself and she is entitled for the maintenance from the petitioner, therefore, the amount of maintenance to the non-petitioner No.2 is determined as Rs. 1,000/-per month from the date of application submitted for maintenance of the non-petitioner No. 2. The amount which the non-petitioner is getting in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC, shall be deducted from this amount of Rs. 1,000/- till she gets Rs. 500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC. 14. 1,000/-per month from the date of application submitted for maintenance of the non-petitioner No. 2. The amount which the non-petitioner is getting in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC, shall be deducted from this amount of Rs. 1,000/- till she gets Rs. 500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC. 14. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the final determination of the application under Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act as the application is required to be decided on merits after considering through all the material placed on record by both the parties. 15. Therefore, revision petition of the petitioner is partly allowed as indicated.Revision Petition partly allowed. *******