JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.K. Upadhyay learned counsel for the respondent and perused record. 2. The instant appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 (In short the Act), has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.9.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Regular Suit No. 420/2008. 3. The respondent Bhupesh Kumar Vishwakarma had filed a suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restoration of conjugal rights. During the pendency of suit, an application under Section 24 of the Act, was moved by the appellant Smt. Jyoti Bala Sharma for payment of maintenance and expenses of proceeding. The application moved by the appellant has been rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Smt. Jyoti Bala Sharma. 4. It has not been disputed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Primary School and her income is Rs. 9967/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent is Senior Auditor in Chief Accountant General (Civil Audit), U.P., Allahabad and his monthly income is Rs. 14,395/- out of which Rs. 6100/- are deducted. According to the appellant, from the wedlock of appellant and respondent, a female child was born who is aged about 5 years and, at the present moment, is living with the appellant and under Section 125, Cr.P.C. maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- has been granted to the child. 5. It has been admitted at bar that in pursuance of 6th Pay Commission Report, the salary has been enhanced and it is much more than what has been referred to in the impugned order. However, appellant’s counsel disputes that since the minor child is living with the appellant, heavy burden lies on her not only to maintain herself but also the minor child. The expense incurred in the litigation, is too heavy and in absence of any maintenance paid by the respondent, the appellant is suffering from extreme hardship. 6. On the other hand, respondent’s counsel submits that Rs. 1000/- has been paid in pursuance of the order passed by the competent Court in proceeding under Section 125. Cr.P.C. It has been stated that since the appellant herself is an earning member, she is not liable to be paid maintenance. 6. On the other hand, respondent’s counsel submits that Rs. 1000/- has been paid in pursuance of the order passed by the competent Court in proceeding under Section 125. Cr.P.C. It has been stated that since the appellant herself is an earning member, she is not liable to be paid maintenance. Respondent’s counsel submits that under Section 24 of the Act, the maintenance may be paid only in case the person concerned i.e., husband or wife, does not possess any independent source of income. 7. Appellant’s counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and others, AIR 1997 SC 3397 and Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266 . 8. A plain reading of Section 24 of the Act, shows that maintenance pendente lite, may be granted to the husband and wife as the case may be, who has no independent income sufficient to meet requirement of life. The Legislature to their wisdom, has used the word, “sufficient” which means that Court has to see the totality of the circumstances while deciding the question with regard to grant of maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. Merely because a person has got independent source of income, it does not disqualify to avail the benefit of Section 24 of the Act. Even if a person has got income, it does not necessarily mean to meet the requirements of life keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, submission of respondent’s counsel that both the parties are earning members drawing almost equal salary, the payment of maintenance cannot be granted under Section 24 of the Act is not correct. The payment of maintenance is to be seen keeping in view the totality of circumstances and expenses incurred by the parties not only with regard to maintenance of their own life but also the child if any. In the case of Padmja Sharma (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that payment of maintenance may be awarded to the husband and wife even if they have some source of income keeping in view the requirement under the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The cost of living, the amount incurred in the maintenance of child, are relevant factors. The cost of living, the amount incurred in the maintenance of child, are relevant factors. In the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that payment of maintenance shall also include the maintenance of unmarried daughter as well as own expenses of the lady. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant port of the judgment in the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra) as under : “6. ...Under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain his unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. In this case since the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and her two unmarried daughters one of whom is living with wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing the maintenance pendente lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that section operates in its own field.” 9. However, while considering the payment of maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, the Court may take note of the fact with regard to maintenance granted in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In case the maintenance granted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C., is too meagre and is not sufficient to meet out the expense of mother as well as minor child, then appropriate maintenance may be granted to the wife which may meet out the requirement of the child also during pendency of a proceeding before the Family Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case in Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, 2003 (21) LCD 748, which does not seem to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case in Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, 2003 (21) LCD 748, which does not seem to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Amarjit Kaur (supra), certain conditions were imposed by the Court and accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that conditions imposed, is de hors the criteria laid down in the statutory provisions. It has been further held that the order rejecting the review application summarily without considering the relevant judgment of the Apex Court, is liable to set aside. Of course, while considering the application under Section 24 of the Act, the Court has to apply its mind and pass speaking and reasoned order while awarding or declining maintenance. The other judgment in (Smt.) Shashi Prabha Shukla v. (Sri) Shailendra Kumar Shukla, 1987 (5) LCD 38, also does not seem to be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Smt. Shashi Prabha Shukla (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that misconduct of spouse making application is not relevant for consideration. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is in possession of minor child aged about 5 years and the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- only has been awarded in proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C., we are of the view that some amount of maintenance should be awarded as maintenance pendente lite, to the appellant to meet out the requirements of the wife and child. 11. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no sufficient fund to pay lawyers fee and also substantial expenses incurred while attending school in the remote area where she is working in the Primary School as Teacher. 12. By the interim order dated 13.1.2009, we have directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. While allowing the appeal, we enhance the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month with effect from January, 2010 keeping in view the salary of parties in pursuance of the 6th Pay Commission Report. The respondent shall also pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as cost incurred towards litigation and other expenses to contest the suit in question. 13. Under these circumstances, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. The respondent shall also pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as cost incurred towards litigation and other expenses to contest the suit in question. 13. Under these circumstances, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month with effect from January, 2010 and Rs. 10000/- as costs of litigation and other expenses to contest the suit in question. The impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court is set aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court is directed to decide the suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 14. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the impugned order dated 10.9.2008 is set aside. It is clarified that while deciding the application pending, the Family Court shall not be influenced with the observations in the present case and shall decide the case independently on the basis of evidence on record. 15. Let lower Court record be sent back for expeditious disposal of the case. ————