ORDER : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 3/12/2009 passed by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 1705 of 2000, whereby the appellant is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 - wife and Rs. 2,000/- each per month to respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are sons, until they attain the age of majority. 2. Heard Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raval, Ld. Counsel for the respondents. 3. It appears that the plaintiff - respondent no. 1 on her behalf as well as on behalf of her minor sons, preferred the proceedings initially before the Civil Court being Civil Suit No. 18/1999 for the maintenance. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to Family Court, Ahmedabad and it was registered as Family Suit No. 1705/2000. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 3,000/- each per month for both the sons, total Rs. 11,000/- per month under the provisions of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 4. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant - appellant herein had neglected to maintain the plaintiff wife as well as both the sons since the defendant was desirous to re-marry with other lady. It is on account of the said behaviour of not providing any amount towards maintenance, cruelty, etc., there were complaints including under Sections 498A, 506A, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiffs had called upon, initially, the defendant to pay the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month for each of the plaintiffs, total Rs. 9,000/- vide notice dated 27/7/1998. However, no amount of maintenance was paid and, therefore, the suit was filed. 5. It further appears that there were orders passed for interim maintenance for Rs. 1,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 900/- per month for son Amit and Rs. 600/- per month for another son Ronak from January 2000. The trial Court, at the conclusion of the suit, decreed the suit and directed for maintenance as observed earlier. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 6. We have perused the judgment and the reasons recorded by the trial Court. We have also heard Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raval, Ld. Counsel for the respondents. 7. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 6. We have perused the judgment and the reasons recorded by the trial Court. We have also heard Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raval, Ld. Counsel for the respondents. 7. The first contention raised by Mr. Gandhi is that as per the observations made in the judgment by the trial Court, the plaintiffs and the defendant were residing together till 2000 and, therefore, the maintenance could not have been ordered from 1998 onwards. It was submitted that inspite of the same, the trial Court has directed for maintenance from the date of the application, which is from 1998 onwards and, therefore, there is an error which may be considered by this Court. 8. The examination of said contention shows that as per the evidence on record, even though the plaintiffs and defendant were residing under one roof, the defendant had tried to coerce the plaintiff no. 1 wife to sign the divorce papers and had also made an attempt to pour kerosene on her and for which the police complaint was also filed with Bapunagar Police Station. Thereafter, within same house, the defendant husband had neglected to maintain the wife and both the sons and it is on that count a notice was issued in the year 1998 on behalf of the plaintiffs to pay the maintenance to the plaintiffs. Since no amount towards maintenance was paid, the proceedings were initiated by filing the suit before the Civil Court. Under these circumstances, merely because the plaintiffs and the defendant stayed under one roof, the same would not be sufficient ground to avoid the liability for maintenance until it is proved by the defendant that the maintenance of the family during the said period was borne by the defendant. On the contrary, as per the plaintiffs, the defendant had neglected to maintain herself and the sons. Hence, the said contention deserves to be rejected and, therefore, rejected. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is on account of the delay in the proceedings caused by the wife i.e. plaintiff, the liability of paying maintenance should not fall upon the defendant husband. Hence, the said contention deserves to be rejected and, therefore, rejected. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is on account of the delay in the proceedings caused by the wife i.e. plaintiff, the liability of paying maintenance should not fall upon the defendant husband. It was submitted that the Rojkam of the suit goes to show that number of times, the attempts were made by the trial Court to procure the presence and cooperation of the plaintiff - wife in proceeding with the trial, but the plaintiff did not cooperate and, therefore, the orders were also passed to stop the interim maintenance for one month and under these circumstances, the delay could be attributed to the plaintiffs and the trial Court ought to have ordered maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. 10. We have considered the contents of the Rojkam, which has been made available by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing. The perusal thereof, does show that the applications for adjournment were made and it is not that the applications for adjournment at all the times were made on behalf of the plaintiffs, but they were equally made on behalf of the defendant. Further on the date when the plaintiffs could not remain present, the application was made by the defendant to stop the interim maintenance. The trial Court at one point of time did find that since application for adjournment was made, one month's interim maintenance should not be paid, but thereby it cannot be said that for the whole trial, the right of maintenance, which otherwise is available to the plaintiffs, would go away. It may be recorded that the proceedings are not under the control of any party to the proceedings and further the right of maintenance is for the survival of the plaintiff and her sons. If the trial has taken long time, merely because at one point of time, observations were made for not paying the interim maintenance, the same would not be sufficient ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court for ordering maintenance from the date of the application pending the trial. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 11. Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 11. Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Counsel next contended that the interim maintenance was paid as per the Pursis being Rs. 1,000/- per month for the wife, Rs. 900/- per month for the first son and Rs. 600/- per month for the second son, throughout the trial. He submitted that for period of about 10 years the plaintiffs have survived and could maintain and the same shows that the plaintiffs may have other source of income, otherwise, in his submission, it was impossible for the wife and both the sons to survive with the said meagre amount of interim maintenance. He submitted that it was for the plaintiffs to explain the other source of income through which the support being available. In absence thereof, the trial Court ought not to have ordered maintenance from the date of the application and, therefore, he submitted that the error has been committed by the trial Court. 12. In our view, the said contention is misconceived and would, on the contrary, support the case of the plaintiffs. The reason being that even as per the appellant - defendant, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 900/- per month for first son and Rs. 600/- per month for second son was not sufficient to maintain, then in that case the trial Court was justified in enhancing the amount of maintenance as per the impugned judgment. Further, it was not the case of the defendant pleaded before the trial Court that the plaintiffs had any independent source of income and, therefore, in absence thereof, even if the defendant was to contend about any independent source of income of the plaintiffs so as to get set-off or reduction in the amount of maintenance, it was for the defendant to plead and lead evidence for such purpose. In absence thereof, the contention cannot be examined on hypothesis as sought to be canvassed. Hence said contention cannot be accepted. 13. Be it noted that even as per the evidence on record, the salary certificate shows that the income of the defendant was Rs. 25,201-36 per month and merely because he has taken certain loan, for which the deductions are made by the employer, would not result reduction of the liability to pay the maintenance. 13. Be it noted that even as per the evidence on record, the salary certificate shows that the income of the defendant was Rs. 25,201-36 per month and merely because he has taken certain loan, for which the deductions are made by the employer, would not result reduction of the liability to pay the maintenance. The defendant is serving with the State Bank of India and keeping in view the aforesaid income, the order passed for awarding amount of maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the wife and amount of Rs. 2,000/- each per month to both the sons, until they attain the age of majority, cannot be said to be in exercise of discretion in a perverse manner. On the contrary, it cannot be said that such amount is unreasonable in any manner. Further, in any case, the interim maintenance already paid is given set-off, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the trial Court. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless and, therefore, dismissed. The amount of Rs. 1 lac, which has been deposited pursuant to the earlier order dated 17/3/2011 passed by this Court out of approximate amount of Rs. 6 lacs, which was towards arrears of maintenance, shall be permitted to be withdrawn. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances, the appellant shall additionally pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] towards the present litigation, within one month, to the respondents. Appeal dismissed.