JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-husband, who has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act') on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, seeks to question the order dated 16.3.2011 as passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 34/2009 whereby the Additional. District Judge, Nathdwara has allowed an application moved by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Act and has directed the petitioner to make payment of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the wife and the daughter from the date of filing of the application i.e. 19.12.2009; and further to make payment to the respondent-wife of an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 100/- towards conveyance for each date of hearing in the Court. 2. The respondent-wife, called upon to defend the said petition for dissolution of marriage, moved the application under Section 24 ibid with the submissions inter alia, that the petitioner-husband was engaged as engineer in a cement company at Jaipur and earning around Rs. 45,000/- per month. The respondent-wife further submitted that the petitioner-husband has been neglecting to maintain herself and their 7 months' old girl child; and she required maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month for each i.e., Rs. 5,000/- per month in all. The respondent-wife further claimed an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses and yet further amount towards conveyance for attending the dates of hearing in the Court. 3. The petitioner put the application to contention with the submissions, inter alia, that the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance amount because she was living separate of her own accord. The petitioner also submitted that upon his efforts for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent-wife respondent in the manner that the petitioner ought to provide her safety from his parents; and her only intention was that the petitioner should live separate from his parents that was entirely unjustified. On the aspects of earnings, the petitioner submitted that his net income was about Rs. 37,000/- per month; and that the respondent was M.A. pass and was maintaining herself with tuition's and tailoring. The petitioner also made the submissions to the effect that he had taken loan for marriage purpose from ICICI Bank where for he was making payment of monthly installments of Rs. 37,000/- per month; and that the respondent was M.A. pass and was maintaining herself with tuition's and tailoring. The petitioner also made the submissions to the effect that he had taken loan for marriage purpose from ICICI Bank where for he was making payment of monthly installments of Rs. 8,199/-; and had taken yet further a housing loan from Bank of Baroda, Nathdwara where for he was required to make payment of monthly installments of Rs. 9,813/-. The petitioner submitted that an amount of Rs. 18,012/- per month from his income would, thus, go towards loan repayment; and then, he was living at Jaipur and was required to spend about Rs. 15,000/- per month upon himself; and further, he was required to visit his parents at Nathdwara and to spend for them about Rs. 4,000-5,000/- per month. Hence, according to the petitioner, nothing was saved from his income and on the contrary, sometime he was required to take the help from his father. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara found all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner baseless and not making out a case for denial of reasonable amount of maintenance to the respondent-wife. The learned Judge found that the petitioner was, admittedly, earning Rs. 37,000/- per month and failed to adduce any evidence to show that the wife was having independent income to maintain herself and the daughter. The learned Judge was also not impressed with the suggestions about the payment towards loan and observed that such was a liability created by the petitioner himself and on that count, he could not seek exemption from his liability to maintain the wife and the child. The learned Judge also observed that the other aspects regarding conduct of the parties was a matter of evidence and on such allegations, the wife could not be denied the right to claim maintenance; and the prayer for Rs. 2,500/- per month for each, the wife and the daughter, was that of rather minimum. A suggestion was made before the learned Judge that the amount be awarded only from the date of the order that was also rejected being not supported by law and the learned Judge found it just and proper to award the amount of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. The learned Judge further considered it proper to allow Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. The learned Judge further considered it proper to allow Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 100/- for each attended date of hearing and hence, directed the petitioner to make the payment as noticed hereinabove. 5. Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the amount so awarded by the learned Judge at Rs. 5,000/- per month is highly excessive and the relevant factors have been ignored. It is submitted that the respondent-wife is holding an M.A. Degree and has been earning, in tuitions but the learned Judge has erred in ignoring such relevant facts. It is also submitted that daughter being not a party to the proceedings, the learned judge has not been justified in awarding the amount towards her maintenance. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in overlooking the substantial liabilities of the petitioner and the conduct of the respondent-wife. 6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in this matter. 7. So far the allegations about want of proper conduct on the part of the respondent-wife and herself living separate of her own accord are concerned, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly pointed out that these allegations are subject of evidence; and on such allegations alone, the respondent-wife cannot be denied the right to claim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. 8. So far the submission about the respondent-wife's income fro tuition's etc. is concerned, it has only been noted to be rejected. There has not been an iota of evidence in regard to such bald assertions. So far the educational qualification of the wife is concerned, even if she is shown possessing a post-graduate degree, that by itself cannot be taken sufficient to deprive her of the right to claim maintenance from the husband when there is no evidence about her actual earning. Merely for the potential capacity to earn, the respondent-wife cannot be denied the reasonable amount towards maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. She is not shown having independent income sufficient to support herself and the child. 9. Merely for the potential capacity to earn, the respondent-wife cannot be denied the reasonable amount towards maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. She is not shown having independent income sufficient to support herself and the child. 9. So far the question of granting maintenance amount in the name of the child is concerned, suffice is to say that when the wife is found entitled to maintenance and she has the minor, rather infant, child to support, any interim maintenance to the wife alone would have been meaningless had the provision been not made for the child also. The learned Judge has not committed any error of law or facts when has kept in view the needs of the daughter also while quantifying the amount of maintenance. 10. So far the assertions on the part of the petitioner about payment of the loan installments are concerned, the learned District Judge has rightly pointed out that such are the liabilities of the creation of the petitioner himself. The petitioner cannot escape the moral responsibility as well as statutory liability to maintain his wife and the child in the name of such requirements of making payment towards the loan taken. Similarly, the assertion that the petitioner is making some contribution to the parents does not absolve him of the liability to maintain his wife and the child. 11. The facts of the case make out that the petitioner is a qualified engineer, is engaged in a reasonable job, and is earning, as per his own admission, a minimum of Rs. 37,000/- per month. The petitioner has asserted that he is living at Jaipur and is spending about Rs. 15,000/- per month upon himself. Looking to the reasonable earnings of the petitioner and the overall circumstances, the amount as awarded by the learned District Judge, at Rs. 5,000/- per month for maintenance of the petitioner's wife and daughter, could only be considered rather on the lower side; and cannot be taken as exorbitant or excessive from any standpoint. 12. Apart from the above, the learned Additional District Judge has been rather restrictive when has allowed litigation expenses only at Rs. 2,500/- and conveyance amount only at Rs. 100/- per date. To say the least, this quantification is much on the lower side. 13. 12. Apart from the above, the learned Additional District Judge has been rather restrictive when has allowed litigation expenses only at Rs. 2,500/- and conveyance amount only at Rs. 100/- per date. To say the least, this quantification is much on the lower side. 13. In an overall view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction at the instance of the petitioner.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******