ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. C.W. J.C. No. 269 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner, Vijoy Kumar Sinha (respondent of C.W.J.C. No. 19237 of 2011) for quashing the order dated 8.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No.256 of 2009 by which he has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent as ad interim maintenance whereas C.W.J.C No 19237 of 20011 has been filed by the petitioner Anamika (respondent of C.W. J.C. No. 269 of 2012) for enhancement of ad interim maintenance and litigation cost. 3. A matrimonial suit vide Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No.256 of 2006 has been filed by Vijoy Kumar Sinha against respondent Smt. Anamika for divorce before the Family Court, Patna and same is pending. During pendency of that case an application was filed on behalf of the respondent-wife under section 24 of the Hindi Marriage Act for ad-interim maintenance and litigation cost. 4. In the petition Smt. Anamika has claimed that admittedly the marriage was solemnized on 20.5.1989 as per the Hindu rites and in course of time she was tortured and she was compelled to leave the house of the husband. It has been claimed by Smt. Anamika (wife) that from the wedlock a male child was born, namely, Abhiseikh. It has been further alleged that as she has no source of income to maintain herself and also her minor child and for that she has already filed a Maintenance Case No.111 (M) of 2011 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is pending in the Family Court, Patna. It has been averred that Vijoy Kumar Sinha is District Programme Officer at present posted at Jehanabad and enjoying the salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. He has also movable and immovable property having earning of Rs.15,000/- per months and she has claimed Rs.20,000/- as ad interim maintenance per month along with the cost of litigation. 5. The claim of the respondent Vijoy Kumar Sinha is that she herself deserted him without any cause and she is running a business of clothes shop in the name and style of Maa Ambay Cut Piece Center situated at C/8 Super Market at Kurji Morh, District- Patna and her income is approximately Rs.25,000/- per month. 5. The claim of the respondent Vijoy Kumar Sinha is that she herself deserted him without any cause and she is running a business of clothes shop in the name and style of Maa Ambay Cut Piece Center situated at C/8 Super Market at Kurji Morh, District- Patna and her income is approximately Rs.25,000/- per month. It has been submitted that she (Anamika) has already married with one Sunil Kumar in the year 1992 and she is living with her newly husband in Patliputra Colony. It has been submitted that she has claimed maintenance which was replied by the petitioner and in the reply at the first instance he has claimed that she is living adulterous life with Sunil Kumar and she has sufficient earning and as such she is not entitled to any maintenance. 6. It has been recorded in the order that the petitioner has also challenged the paternity of the boy and has claimed for DNA test to prove the paternity of boy. This issue is not involved before this Court so there is no need to give any opinion. The only question in the present case is, as to whether the order passed by the court below for maintenance to wife and its quantum is correct or not. 7. It does not appear from the records of the case that the petitioner–husband could produce a substantive evidence to prove the ownership of shop as alleged in the petition nor he could prove her earning from the shop as aforesaid. One thing is very much admitted that Smt. Anmika was married to Vijoy Kumar Sinha as per Hindu rites and being the wife having a male child required maintenance not only for herself but also for her son so that she along with her son could live in the world. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in the order passed by the court below in affording maintenance to the respondent (wife). Accordingly the writ petition vide C.W.J.C. 269 of 2012 is dismissed. 9. The wife Anamika has also filed C.W.J.C. No. 19237 of 2011 claiming enhancement of the maintenance and litigation cost. Looking to the nature of allegation and counter allegation by the parties, I do not find any justification to enhance the maintenance. Accordingly the writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 19237 is also dismissed.