ORDER : 1. The present appeal arises against the judgment and order passed by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 809 of 2002, whereby the learned Judge has ordered for maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of the petition till 31.12.2007 and Rs. 9,000 per month from 1.1.2008 till the wife gets remarried and it is further ordered to pay the regular maintenance. 2. We have heard Mr. Adeshra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jain, learned Counsel upon advance copy for the respondent. 3. We may record that Family Suit No. 809 of 2002 was for getting maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It came on record that the respondent-appellant herein is working with ONGC and his salary was Rs. 23,179.60. Under these circumstances, the Family Court considered the aspects of maintenance and recorded the reasons at paragraphs 57 and 58 as under: 57. Moreover, for husband it is also argued out that under the provisions of Section 18(1) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act only divorce wife is entitled to maintenance, so the wife is not entitled to get maintenance in the present proceedings and in regard to this submission for husband case of Vihalal Mangaldas Patel Vs. Maiben Vihalal Patel, AIR 1995 Guj 88 , has been referred. In this case law, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed and held as under: Originally, the Hindu marriage, succession minority, guardianship, adoption and maintenance were part of one Hindu Code Bill and later on they took statutory form by different Acts, but the Legislative intention to provide maintenance to the spouse even after divorce which is contained in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has to be read into both Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act same Legislature cannot be imputed with two different intentions in respect of the same couple on the same question. u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the provision regarding maintenance is to be applicable both to a wife and a divorced wife, there is no reason why the same word "wife" which is used in Section 18 should not be read in the same manner because both these provisions deal with the question of maintenance between a husband and a wife. u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the wife would necessarily include a divorced wife for the purpose of maintenance and alimony even though the section uses the words "wife" or "husband" and not "divorced wife" or "divorced husband" and it also provides for maintenance not exceeding the life of the applicant. Similarly, in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, though the words used are "wife and husband", the maintenance is provided by the husband during the life-time of the wife. Thus, the scheme of both these sections I the same; the purpose is the same; the words used are the same. Therefore, when the word "wife" in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act includes a divorced wife, so also in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the word "wife" has to be interpreted to be a divorced wife. Any other construction would lead to anomalous and contradictory situations and orders. If the wife makes an application u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance even after divorce, that would be maintainable, but if she makes an application for the same purpose u/s 13 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, it would not be maintainable even though both the provisions have same purpose in mind and the same intention to provide maintenance to the wife. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that the words "wife" and "husband" are used to describe the relationship to provide for maintenance during the lifetime of the wife and it includes a divorced wife any by doing so, there is no violation done to the language or the meaning because the meaning is always to be taken from the context and intention. In the above referred case law, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has simply held and observed that Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act when it provides for maintenance for wife it includes a divorcee wife. Nowhere in this case law, it has been held or observed that only divorcee wife will be entitled to maintenance u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In the circumstances, it is clear that said submission and argu of the husband is also worthless and useless. 58. The wife initially in her petition had claimed Rs. Nowhere in this case law, it has been held or observed that only divorcee wife will be entitled to maintenance u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In the circumstances, it is clear that said submission and argu of the husband is also worthless and useless. 58. The wife initially in her petition had claimed Rs. 6,000 p.m., for her maintenance and thereafter, by amendment of her petition she has now claimed Rs. 15,000 p.m., for her maintenance. Moreover, she has also contended that she is dependent upon her retired father so she also requires separate residence. So, sum of Rs. 4,000 p.m., to be awarded to her as rent of the residential premises for her. Moreover, for wife it has also been submitted and argued out that husband is living luxurious life, so as per his status the wife is entitled to live her life, therefore, she has claimed Rs. 15,000 p.m., as maintenance for herself. In regards to the submission of the wife, for husband, it is submitted and argued out that he has to discharge liability of his ailing mother, his mother is not getting any pension and he does not possess any bungalow as alleged by the wife, he is not living lavish and luxurious life. In regard to these submissions of the both sides, it requires to note that it is an admitted fact that the husband is working as a Store Keeper in O.N.G.C., at Mehsana, in month of August, 2010 his gross salary was Rs. 23,719.60. In foregoing paragraphs, it has also been observed that the husband must have other source of income also. It is also an admitted fact that husband possesses Maruti Car and as per his say he has only to bear liability of his mother only. It is also an admitted fact that husband has his own residential house. Husband has also admitted in his cross-examination that his mother was serving as a Teacher. As mother of husband was serving as a Teacher, so naturally after retirement, she must have received retirement benefits. So in the circumstances, it cannot be said that entire responsibility of her mother is upon husband. At present, wife is getting sum of Rs. 3,000 p.m., as maintenance pendente lite in present proceeding. Considering above facts and circumstances, it deems fit that by awarding sum of Rs. So in the circumstances, it cannot be said that entire responsibility of her mother is upon husband. At present, wife is getting sum of Rs. 3,000 p.m., as maintenance pendente lite in present proceeding. Considering above facts and circumstances, it deems fit that by awarding sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) per month as maintenance from date of the petition till date 31.12.2007 and from date 1.1.2008 onwards till she remarries sum of Rs. 9,000 (Rupees nine thousand only) per month as maintenance to the wife for herself would serve the purpose of justice. Moreover, in regards to the claim of wife Rs. 4,000 p.m., towards rent for her residence, it requires to note that it is an admitted fact that wife is residing with her father. It is not say of the wife that her father has not her own residence, it is also not her say that her father resides in rented house and his father requires to pay rent for residential premises for himself or for her daughter. It is also not her say that she intends to live separately from her father and wants to get separate house for herself on rent or lease. It is also not her say that she has acquired any residential premises on lease or rent for her separate residence. Considering these facts, moreover, as enough amount is going to be awarded to her for her maintenance, it not requires to award separate additional sum besides the amount of maintenance towards rent as claimed. 4. In our view, if the salary of the husband is Rs. 23,719.60, the awarding of maintenance at Rs. 9,000 per month cannot be said to be on higher side. As regards the suit preferred by the appellant for divorce being Family Suit No. 317 of 2003 is concerned, he has preferred a separate Appeal being First Appeal No. 3172 of 2011, which may be considered separately, but on the aspects of maintenance namely; the liability of the husband to maintain the wife and the quantum of maintenance, in view of the reasons recorded by the Family Court, we find that it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed error in awarding the maintenance at Rs. 9,000 per month. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. 9,000 per month. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Adeshra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, lastly contended that some reasonable time may be given to the appellant to deposit the amount of arrears of maintenance. 6. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the amount of arrears of maintenance is about more than Rs. 4 lacs. We may not enter into the figure and suffice it to say that the amount of arrears minus the amount already paid to the respondent, shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of three months in three equal monthly instalments. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal fails. Hence, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.