JUDGMENT:- Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. These petitions by wife and the husband are directed against the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai below Exhibit "6" in Petition No.C-89 of 2009. By this order, the learned Judge granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to Aarohi, daughter of the petitioner in the two petitions. The learned Judge refused to grant maintenance to Neelakshi - the petitioner in Petition No.3748 of 2010. Aggrieved thereby the parties are before this Court. 2. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the documents placed on record. It is not disputed that Neelakshi was married to Parag and Aarohi is the daughter born out of the said wedlock. It is not disputed that Parag-petitioner in Petition No.4063 of 2010 has filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty bearing No. M.J. Petition No.A-2176/2009 before the Family Court against Neelakshi. In the said petition, Parag has stated that Neelakshi was formerly serving in an advertisement firm but is now a housewife. In paragraph No.53 of the divorce petition, Parag had also stated that Neelakshi lost her job due to recession. Thus, it cannot be disputed that Neelakshi was out of job when the learned Judge took up the matter for considering Neelakshi' s claim for maintenance. 3. The learned Judge observed in paragraph 4 of the order that both I he parties have almost same qualifications and considering the fact that 'the wife was employed even after her marriage, it seems not to grant interim maintenance till the matter is decided on merits. This is because even after respondent submitted his reply stating that petitioner was employed after marriage, the petitioner did not file counter affidavit denying this fact'. Now wife was not required to file any affidavit, since the husband, in his Marriage Petition, has categorically stated that wife had lost her job due to recession. Therefore, he has to maintain her. After having filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty it is not open for the husband to say that wife should come back to him and stay with him and that because she refuses, she cannot be granted maintenance. Therefore, the reasons which led the learned Judge to refuse maintenance to Neelakshi, cannot be held to be proper. 4. Therefore, the reasons which led the learned Judge to refuse maintenance to Neelakshi, cannot be held to be proper. 4. As far as maintenance to daughter Aarohi is concerned, she is obviously entitled to maintenance. She had been rightly granted maintenance. This takes me to the question of quantum the learned Judge has agreed Rs.5,000/- per month to Aarohi. Both the parties have inflated figures of their expenditures. The respondent-husband has stated that he had to look after his parents. The learned counsel for the wife states that the parents of the respondent-husband are either employed or pensioners, therefore, husband is not required to look after them. Be that as it may. If the husband is getting a salary of Rs.21,170/- per month, he could easily shell out at least the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for his wife and daughter. Therefore, keeping the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court granting maintenance to respondent-Aarohi untouched, and I would set aside the impugned order in so far as it refuses to grant maintenance to the petitioner-Neelakshi in Writ Petition No.3748 of 2010 and direct that she, too, be paid, a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance from the date of application. 5. Rule made absolute in above terms in Writ Petition No.3748 of 2010. Writ Petition No.4063 of 2010 is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.