Judgment 1. Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent it is taking up for final disposal. 2. This petition is by the husband, Respondent is the wife. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 16-4-2009 and the same was registered on 20-4-2009. It is the case of the petitioner that they stayed together only for three months. Petitioner-husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruetly and desertion. During the said proceedings, the respondent makes an application under Section 24 seeking interim maintenance. The said application is seriously opposed by the petitioner-husband. Learned Family Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as interim maintenance and Rs. 25,000/-towards litigation expenses. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Chandrachooda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Judge has clearly erred in awarding maintenance as well as litigation expenses inasmuch as without any material finding is recorded that the petitioner is earning Rs.1,50,000/- p.m. whereas it is not so. He has made available the salary certificate during the course of this proceedings. He also submits that respondent-wife is gainfully employed and is earning Rs.30,000/-. 4. On notice, respondent has entered appearance and counters the contentions of the petitioner. He submits that the salary of the respondent is Rs.9,000/- and not Rs.30,000/- as suggested. 5. Undoubtedly, these documents were not made available to the learned Family Judge while deciding the maintenance. But nevertheless, I have looked into these two documents on which the maintenance is required to be awarded. There is no gain in remitting the matter to the learned Family Judge once again to adjudicate on the small issue of maintenance. One is required to take note of the cost of living and also the inflation while considering the grant of maintenance. One is also required to take note of the standard of living which the wife was used to when she was living with the husband. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-husband is a Software Engineer and is working for Infotech Software Company at Hyderabad. Respondent is working at Mphasis. 6. One is also required to take note of the standard of living which the wife was used to when she was living with the husband. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-husband is a Software Engineer and is working for Infotech Software Company at Hyderabad. Respondent is working at Mphasis. 6. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances as well as the cost of living, I am of the view that the application of the respondent-wife seeking interim maintenance is required to be granted, however with certain modifications. Having said so, I proceed to pass the following.- (i) Petition is allowed in part; (ii) Respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/-p.m. Insofar as litigation expenses are concerned, I am of the view that it cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary, it is in consonance with the present day cost of living; (iii) Entire arrears of maintenance is required to be deposited within a period of four weeks from today without waiting for the certified copy of this order; (iv) If the said amount is not deposited, it is open for the respondent to recover the amount as known to law.