JUDGMENT 1. - Application has been presented seeking condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. 1 have perused the memorandum of the application. Learned counsel for the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accepting the cause shown, delay is condoned. Accordingly the application is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have prayed for disposal of the appeal which is taken up at their request. 5. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by District Judge, Sikar in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance during proceedings in an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent whereby Rs. 1,500/- has been paid as maintenance to the respondent-wife and two minor children namely Amit Kumar aged 10 years and daughter Arti aged 7 years as stated in the application seeking maintenance. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Appeal has been preferred on the ground that the respondent also working in Rashtriya Unnat Sansthan School and getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. No documentary evidence has been placed to substantiate this. Such an averment cannot be accepted to deprive the maintenance to the wife-respondent and the children. It is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and the children. Before the trial Court it has been proved by the respondent that the husband is an employee. He is working in the school and by now his salary might have been enhanced. The trial Court considering the factual circumstance has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance pendente life. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that an attempt was made for realisation of the amount, but failed. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that he has lost his contact with his client. His statement appears to be not honest. However, respondent is at liberty to realise the amount by filing execution petition.The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed *******