Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The wife, who is the petitioner, has preferred this petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court in application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was pleaded before the learned trial court that the petitioner herein, had been forced to leave matrimonial home for the reason as pleaded by her which inter alia included physical and mental cruelty. It was pleaded that the respondent, who is the husband and petitioner before the trial court, is not supporting their daughter. It was pleaded that his earning was Rs.70,000/-per month including private tuition work etc. The non-applicant husband was also possessed large tracts of agriculture land in Janerghat/Chail from where he is deriving income of more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. The petitioner claimant was serving as Librarian in the Indian Institute of Advance Studies where she take home salary was Rs. 21,000/- and she has no other means to support her daughter. She claimed a sum of Rs.55,000/- for litigation expenses. On contest, the learned trial Court holds that the non-applicant is admittedly a central government employee earning Rs.21,000/- per month and there was no material on the record that she is spending large portion of salary on maintaining her daughter. 2. What I find from the judgment is that the learned Judge has given a complete go by to the principles applicable for grant of maintenance. What the wife sought in this application was litigation expenses which should and ought to have been granted. Even accepting that the salary of the petitioner herein was Rs. 21,000/- per month, the learned trial Court should and ought to have realized that she would spend money for food, clothing and shelter on herself and also education and school fee etc. on the child. However, the learned court came to the conclusion that this salary was substantial to meet the expenses. The learned Court also holds that the receipt of the actual expenditure incurred have not been placed and proved on the record of the case. 3. The application has been disposed of without caring to ascertain the factual position. The principles for grant of interim maintenance are well settled. In Smt.Chandana Guha Roy Vs. The learned Court also holds that the receipt of the actual expenditure incurred have not been placed and proved on the record of the case. 3. The application has been disposed of without caring to ascertain the factual position. The principles for grant of interim maintenance are well settled. In Smt.Chandana Guha Roy Vs. Goutam Guha Roy, AIR 2004 Calcutta 36, the Court holds: “11………………………….Since Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act unlike other Acts provides for maintenance of both the husband and the wife, the Court should carefully proceed in the matter for granting maintenance. The trial Court should have considered in this case that the petitioner husband filed divorce suit incurring cost. The petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and when his service was terminated, he did not challenge the said termination order. The learned Trial Judge was wrong in the calculation that if an Arts Graduate lady can do something and should not sit idle then the learned Trial Judge also should have considered that the petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and he also should not sit idle being able bodied. In this patriarchal society like ours that weaker sex is to face various troubles to find out a suitable job for maintaining herself. In such cases when considering the claim for maintenance, the Court should assess the conduct of the parties. Now here what is the conduct. In 1998 March, the wife had to find out shelter in her parental home. In the same year the husband filed a suit for divorce, there is no evidence on record that the husband tried for conciliation and incurring expenditure he can file a suit for divorce. He can regularly pay the Lawyers’ fees and other expenditures and when the wife files an application for maintenance to encounter that petition takes advantage of the language of Section 24 and files a petition for maintenance. The income of the husband must be within his special knowledge and he did not make any attempt to prove either his actual income or his dismissal from service though Section 106 of the Evidence Act is very clear in this regard. The husband was to disclose his income as it was within his special knowledge as provided in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. ………………….” (Pp.41&42) 4. In Dr. Ajay Kashyap Vs. The husband was to disclose his income as it was within his special knowledge as provided in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. ………………….” (Pp.41&42) 4. In Dr. Ajay Kashyap Vs. Dr.Smt. Hemlata Kashyap and another, AIR 2005 M.P. 227 , the Court holds that: “6..................Petitioner is a qualified Doctor and can maintain the wife and child for which Rs.3000/- have been assessed. It has been held by the learned Court that petitioner was a Regional Sales Manager earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, he cannot be exonerated from the liability of maintaining his wife and child only on the ground that now he has resigned from the job. Holding him to be well qualified, learned Court has directed for grant of maintenance by the impugned order.” (Pp.228 &229) 5. In Laxmi Sharma Vs. Dr.Akash Deep, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 1031, the Court holds: 7. It is, therefore, clear from the above discussion that while awarding interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the case of the children can also be considered and accordingly the maintenance can be given. 8. The respondent has taken the plea that he has to maintain his old parents, but there is no affidavit of the respondent on record to show that they are living with him or that he is spending money for them. Even if that be so that he has to maintain his parents, it is also his bounden duty to maintain his wife and minor children who are studying in school. The amount of maintenance awarded by the learned District Judge to the extent of Rs.5,000/-, keeping in view the income of the respondent as Rs.35,000/-, was too meagre and it is accordingly enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month, which amount includes the maintenance of the wife and the two children. The litigation expenses are also enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The balance amount, as awarded above, shall be payable by the respondent within 30 days from today, which shall be deposited either in the Court or paid to the petitioner-wife against receipt. The future maintenance shall be payable by 10th of every month in advance” 6. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that since the wife herself is earning, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The future maintenance shall be payable by 10th of every month in advance” 6. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that since the wife herself is earning, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The proposition urged in such wide terms cannot be accepted as it is settled law that even if the husband is disabled himself from earning, he would be under legal obligation to maintain his wife and children. Turning to the facts of the present case, both the petitioner and the respondent are employed and it is undisputed before me that the minor is being looked after by the wife. She claimed a sum of Rs.55,000/-for litigation expenses and not maintenance. The learned Court below has been short shrift to the entire submissions made and the law on the point. 7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the wife is getting salary of Rs. 21,000/- per month and also maintaining a child, it would be in the fitness of things that a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded as litigation expenses to the petitioner herein. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.