JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The parties in both the cases are same. They are husband and wife. In both the writ petitions one and same order has been challenged. Accordingly, both the cases are heard together and this common judgment is passed. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, the wife is the Petitioner and the husband is the opp.party while in W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, the husband is the Petitioner and the wife is the opp.party. In W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, the wife called in question the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 562 of 2008 arising out of MAT No. 93 of 2007 on the ground that the interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- only, allowed therein was very meagre and that refusal of litigation expenses was illegal. In W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, the husband challenged the award of maintenance passed in the aforesaid order, on the ground that wife has sufficient means to maintain herself and her child, and as such Court below ought not to have awarded any maintenance in their favour. 3. The background facts of the above writ petitions succinctly stated is that husband filed the aforesaid MAT case for divorce against the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. During pendency of the said case, the wife filed a petition u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses, which gave rise to I.A. No. 562 of 2008. As per the case of the wife in W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, she married the opp.party therein in the year, 2000 in accordance with Hindu Rights and their caste custom and out of their wed-lock, a female child was born. The opp.party-husband has filed the aforesaid matrimonial case on false ground of cruelty and desertion. He has extra marital relationship with a Muslim girl and when it was objected to by the Petitioner, the matrimonial case has been filed. It is the further cas-e of the wife-Petitioner that opp.party-husband has three beauty clinic-cum-sliming centres two at Bhubaneswar and one at Rourkela, after the name and style, Perfect Point. The net income of the husband-opp. party is Rs.15, 00, 000/- per month. On the other hand, she has no source of income. It is the further cas-e of the wife-Petitioner that opp.party-husband has three beauty clinic-cum-sliming centres two at Bhubaneswar and one at Rourkela, after the name and style, Perfect Point. The net income of the husband-opp. party is Rs.15, 00, 000/- per month. On the other hand, she has no source of income. Hence, she claimed a sum of Rs.15, 000/-per month for herself and for her child towards interim maintenance and a sum of Rs.30, 000/- for litigation expenses. In his counter, opp.party-husband admitted the Petitioner to be his legally married wife. He also admitted that a female child was born out of their wed-lock. But, he refuted the averment that he is running three beauty clinic-cum-sliming centers. According to him, he and his partners are running a partnership business at Sahid Nagar and IRC village, Bhubaneswar only. He is earning Rs. 10, 000/- to 11, 000/-per month from the said business. With the aforesaid meagre income, he is maintaining himself and his ailing mother with much difficulty. It is the further case of the opp.party-husband that the Petitioner-wife is running a beauty clinic, wherefrom she is earning more than Rs.20, 000/- per month. She is financially sound enough to maintain herself and her child and to meet the litigation expenses. As such, she herself and the child are not entitled to get any maintenance. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.3, 000/- towards monthly maintenance for both the wife and daughter, and refused to grant any litigation expenses. Being aggrieved with the said orders, while wife filed W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, the husband filed W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, as stated earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the wife submitted that to create evidence, the husband got published in Oriya daily, 'the Dharitri' in its issues dated 29th and 30th June, 2009 that the wife is an expert beautician and she is a proprietor of Nitisha's Beauty Clinic at C-24, 2nd Floor, Market Complex, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. It weighed in the mind of the trial Court that since the wife is a beautician and she is running a beauty clinic, she earns a substantial amount, but, in fact, Bigyan Kumar Sahu, brother of the wife is the proprietor of the said beauty clinic and not the wife. It weighed in the mind of the trial Court that since the wife is a beautician and she is running a beauty clinic, she earns a substantial amount, but, in fact, Bigyan Kumar Sahu, brother of the wife is the proprietor of the said beauty clinic and not the wife. Bigyan Kumar Sahoo sent a Fax Message to the editor of the aforesaid newspaper under Annexure-7 series at page 65 stating that "Nitisha's Beauty Clinic Advt. published on 29th & 30th January 09, Proprietor, Sujata Sahu is a false one. I myself is the absolute owner of the above clinic". The wife also sent such a Fax Message to the Editor, the Samaj denying the proprietorship of Nitisha's beauty clinic and to have given such advertisement. So, according to learned Counsel for the wife, the brother of the wife is the owner of Nitisha's Beauty Clinic and not the wife. The aforesaid two documents are lis pendence documents. At this stage, without evidence, it cannot be said whether those are genuine or not. But, the fact of advertisement said to have been made by the wife that she is a proprietor of Nitisha's Beauty Clinic, prima facie appears to be true, because in the objection to the interim application husband has taken the ground that the wife is running a beauty clinic. 5. Learned counsel for the wife further contended that as found from Annexure-10 series, the husband has huge amount of bank transaction. His income is about Rs.15, 00, 000/- per month. His mother is also getting family pension as revealed from Annexure-9 series. The child is a school going student at Bhubaneswar. About Rs.50, 000/- is required for her admission in school each year, besides the other monthly expenses. Furthermore, now a days the price of essential commodities is increasing by leaps and bounds. The wife along with the child had only claimed Rs.15, 000/- per month towards interim maintenance, besides Rs.30, 000/- towards litigation expenses claimed by the wife. So, the trial Court ought to have allowed a sum of Rs.15, 000/- towards monthly maintenance to the wife and child, besides granting Rs.30, 000/- to the wife towards ligation expenses. The amount of Rs.3, 000/- per month as awarded to the wife and her child is very meagre. So, the trial Court ought to have allowed a sum of Rs.15, 000/- towards monthly maintenance to the wife and child, besides granting Rs.30, 000/- to the wife towards ligation expenses. The amount of Rs.3, 000/- per month as awarded to the wife and her child is very meagre. Learned counsel for the husband, on the contrary, contended that prima facie there is material to show that the wife is running a beauty clinic. She is an income tax Assessee and a PAN card holder. So, she has sufficient means to maintain herself and her child. On the other hand the husband is earning a meagre amount of about Rs.10, 000/- per month. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. According to the husband, the wife is an income tax Assessee, which is refuted by the latter. The husband admits to have been running a partnership business. According to him, he earns about Rs.10, 000/ - per month and with the said income he maintains himself and his ailing mother, whereas according to the wife, the monthly income of the husband is Rs.15, 00, 000/-. In support of this fact, she relied on Annexure-10 series, but those documents do not disclose the income of husband. So, it cannot be said that his monthly income is Rs.15, 00, 000/-. Annexure-9 series reveals fhat the mother of the husband is getting family pension. So, the husband is maintaining himself alone from his income. The submission of learned Counsel for the wife that about Rs.50, 000/- is required for school admission of a child cannot be believed. It has not also been pleaded in the petition filed u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. From the materials on record, it is found that the wife has some income, but it may not be sufficient to maintain herself and her daughter. The husband is a businessman. It is his moral duty to maintain his wife and daughter. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- per moth as interim maintenance in favour of the wife and the child and refused to grant litigation expenses to the wife. In my opinion, the decision taken by the trial Court is just and proper. Under these premises, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed