Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Special Civil Application No. 8137 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner-husband under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the prayer that appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad dated 28.4.2008 in HMP No. 1029/03 and has also prayed for interim relief on the grounds stated in the memo of petition contending that while exercising the discretion under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), prima facie, the learned Judge was required to come to the conclusion that the respondent-wife had sufficient means to maintain herself and her child. It is also contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence and the impugned order is not supported by sufficient evidence for awarding maintenance. 2. Referring to the details it has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner is a professor at N.C. Bodiwala College, Ahmedabad whereas the respondent is well-qualified having degree of B.Sc.., M.C.A and is also doing LL.B. and can maintain herself and in fact she is earning and has also an additional income of Rs. 15,000/- by way of tuitions, which has not been appreciated. Therefore, it is contended that the family Court could not have awarded such a higher amount towards maintenance considering the income of the petitioner-husband which is about Rs. 18,000/- and he is not supposed to have any tuitions under the rules. There is a reference to the other proceedings including a complaint for offence under Section 498A of IPC as well as Criminal Case No. 737/2004 with Women’s Police Station being C.R. No. I-5/2004 and the petitioner has been discharged from the offence under Section 498A and acquitted for offence under Section 506(2) of IPC. 3. Reply has been field by the respondent-wife and both have remained present. Civil Application is also filed for stay against the impugned order pending hearing of the petition on the grounds which have been stated in detail. 4. Heard the petitioner-husband Mr. Rakesh Damir who appears as party-in-person and also Mrs. 3. Reply has been field by the respondent-wife and both have remained present. Civil Application is also filed for stay against the impugned order pending hearing of the petition on the grounds which have been stated in detail. 4. Heard the petitioner-husband Mr. Rakesh Damir who appears as party-in-person and also Mrs. Bhartiben Damir, who also has remained present as a party-in-person. 5. As it transpires from the records which have been produced in detail by both the sides, the petitioner-husband has stated that the impugned order has been passed without considering whether the respondent-wife is entitled under Section 24 of the Act or not. For that he pointedly referred to Section 24 of the Act and emphasised that such an order could be passed only when the other spouse (wife) “has no independent income sufficient for her or his support ....” It has been stated by the petitioner that she is running English speaking classes and she was also serving and therefore she has sufficient means to survive and support herself and therefore she is not entitled for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act which has not been appreciated or considered by the court. The petitioner party-in-person has therefore submitted that not only the entitlement aspect is not considered before passing such an order, the aspect of cruelty has also not been considered. He emphasised that false and frivolous complaints have been filed including for offence under Section 498-A to cause harassment which has been referred to in detail in the petition. He has stated that she is serving and she can maintain herself as she is taking tuitions. He submitted that though the boy is aged about 18 years maintenance is awarded which is not in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner has submitted that in fact he has other liabilities like an ailing mother who is suffering from cancer and the father who had a heart attack and is required to look after and maintain them. The petitioner has therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. He has also filed a civil application for stay of the order. The petitioner has therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. He has also filed a civil application for stay of the order. He has referred to and relied upon various authorities including the judgment in the case of Kumaresan vs. Aswathi, reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 760 , in the case of Manokaran alias Ramamoorthy vs. M. Devaki, reported in (2003) 1 MLJ 752 , and also in the case of Shri Bhagwan Dutt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and Anr., reported in AIR 1975 SC 83 . 7. After making the submissions at length, the petitioner-husband has also given written submission which have been taken on record. 8. The respondent-wife has submitted that she was doing a job, but at present she is not doing the job as her mother is ill and has to look after her as well as the young son at the relevant time. Therefore, she could not serve. She also submitted that in fact he had not allowed her to continue on the job. Therefore, the respondent-wife has stated that she is not a working woman as canvassed. She also referred to the details with regard to the fact that her sign was taken on bearer cheques by the petitioner-husband which have been misused and a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served and the proceedings were initiated. She has also submitted that the fact that her husband is a professor and is earning only Rs. 18,000/- is not correct as it refers to the old salary slip and at present when the order of interim maintenance was passed by the learned Family Court, pay-scale of the petitioner-husband has been much revised. She has also stated that though it is claimed that as a professor he is not supposed to have any tuitions or classes, in fact, there is sufficient evidence placed on record which she has pointedly referred that he is running a creative academy at University Plaza which refers to the name of the petitioner husband and his mobile number. 9. Therefore, she submitted that the income of the petitioner husband by way of salary after the revision of pay-scale is much more and over and above he is earning by running such classes. She submitted that the son is aged about 14 years and still she has to maintain and spend for his education. 9. Therefore, she submitted that the income of the petitioner husband by way of salary after the revision of pay-scale is much more and over and above he is earning by running such classes. She submitted that the son is aged about 14 years and still she has to maintain and spend for his education. Therefore the amount awarded is just and proper particularly when other proceedings are pending in the Family Court. 10. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Act regarding maintenance calls for any interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The details have been submitted on record. However, for the purpose of deciding the present petition only the provision of Section 24 of the Act is required to be considered which provides for interim maintenance and the submission made by the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife is capable of maintaining herself, is well educated and in fact she is earning etc. is required to be considered. 12. In light of the rival submissions and material placed on record, the submissions are devoid of any merit inasmuch as, even though she may be qualified and she might have been doing some job initially, the fact remains that she has to look after her ailing mother and the young son who would be younger at the time when the order was passed and at the same time she has to maintain also for which she might be doing some job which cannot be a ground for denying such maintenance. In fact, the fact that wife is maintaining herself and the son by doing such work cannot be used as a ground for denying her maintenance by the husband. Though the petitioner husband has submitted and claimed that she is surviving and maintaining herself and the son itself is sufficient to draw an inference that she is having income of her own which would disentitle her from making any claim for maintenance is without any substance. 13. Though the petitioner husband has submitted and claimed that she is surviving and maintaining herself and the son itself is sufficient to draw an inference that she is having income of her own which would disentitle her from making any claim for maintenance is without any substance. 13. It is required to be noted that the Family Court has considered the rival submissions and the material and evidence which has been placed on record of this petition also, which clearly establishes that the amount which has been awarded by way of interim maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse as sought to be canvassed. In fact, after the revision of pay-scale, admittedly, the salary income of the petitioner husband would be higher which has been referred to by the respondent-wife. Not only that, the evidence or the details have been produced with regard to other source of income of the petitioner-husband that he is running Creative Academy at University Plaza and his name and mobile number is there. Therefore, such a contention cannot be readily accepted. 14. There is no doubt that the petitioner-husband may have his other responsibilities of maintaining parents who are ailing and considering the overall circumstances as well as the evidence, the Family Court which has awarded maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- for her and for minor son cannot be said to be higher or erroneous which would call for exercise of discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The emphasis given by the petitioner-husband that the provisions of law could not be exploited to extract money, making the other spouse a pauper is also misconceived. The very purpose or the scheme of the Act has to be considered and the underlying object is to provide maintenance to the wife which cannot be overlooked. The Legislature in its wisdom has made such provision for providing for maintenance of the deserted wife. 15. Therefore, though the submissions have been made at length and in spite of that written arguments have also been submitted which have been perused, the same are without any substance. The petition which has been filed is required to be considered and various orders have been passed including the order passed for dismissal of the petition. Thereafter, it has been restored and thereafter an order for review has been passed. The petition which has been filed is required to be considered and various orders have been passed including the order passed for dismissal of the petition. Thereafter, it has been restored and thereafter an order for review has been passed. In fact, the interim order was passed towards deposit of the amount and therefore considering the overall facts and circumstances with the details which have been referred to by both the sides, the present petition cannot be entertained and deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected. Notice is discharged. 16. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the civil application would not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly. 17. Special Civil Application No. 10866 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the prayer that appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to modify the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad dated 28.4.2008 in HMP No. 1029/03 below Exhs. 1, 8 and 11 by enhancing the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioner from Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to Rs. 80,000/- p.m. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, the petition filed by the petitioner-wife for enhancement of the interim maintenance cannot be entertained and the same is also disposed of as rejected. FURTHER ORDER After the order was pronounced, the petitioner-husband has requested that the interim order which was granted by the trial court may be extended for some time as he desires to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the circumstances, the operation of the order is stayed for four weeks to enable the petitioner-husband to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. P P P P P