JUDGMENT Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.: - Appellants-Smt. Geeta Alias Son Dai and her son Varun have preferred the instant appeal feeling dissatisfied against judgment dated September 09, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, whereby a petition preferred under Section 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) seeking maintenance from the respondent was partly allowed. The petition preferred on behalf of Smt. Geeta alias Son Dai was dismissed. Whereas minor son-Varun/appellant No.2 was awarded the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of judgment. 2. In nutshell, the facts contained in the petition are that the marriage of appellant No.1 was solemnized with respondent-Bhupinder Singh Choudhary on December 4, 1996 at village Badshahpur as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were blessed with a son-appellant No.2 on August 25, 1997 at Gurgaon when appellant No.1 was living at her parental home. It has been alleged that appellant No.1-wife was turned out of the matrimonial home on March 28, 1998 when she as well as her parents failed to meet an illegal demand of dowry raised by the respondent. Since then, the appellants are living at Gurgaon with the parents of appellant No.1. It has further been alleged that she has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself as well as her minor son-Varun who is studying in a Lady Fatima School, Gurgaon. Whereas the respondent-husband is posted as a Development Officer with LIC and is getting salary to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month, besides, agricultural income of about Rs.5 lac per year. The appellants-petitioners sought maintenance to the tune of Rs.15000/- per month. 3. Upon notice, the petition was resisted by the respondent. He appeared and filed written statement admitting that he is working as Development Officer with LIC but denied his income as alleged by the appellants-petitioners. Rather, he alleged that appellant No.1-wife is guilty of concealment of true facts. In fact, she has been working as a guest teacher on fixed salary of Rs.10,000/- per month in Lady Fatima School, Gurgaon where master Varun is also studying besides Rs.10,500/- per month on account of rental income, tuition income and dairy business. Other allegations levelled in the petition have been denied alleging that the same are wrong. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Other allegations levelled in the petition have been denied alleging that the same are wrong. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. In order to settle the matter in controversy between the parties, following issues were culled out by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, from the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance from the respondent? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved what should be the quantum of maintenance? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their own act and conduct? OPR 4. Whether the Court fee paid by the petitioner is not sufficient? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court, if so its effect? OPR 6. Relief. 5. Both the parties were afforded ample opportunity to adduce and conclude their evidence in support of their respective pleadings and they led oral as well as documentary evidence. Smt. Geeta alias Son Dai herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and also examined Rajender Singh- PW-2. On the other hand, respondent appeared in the witness box in support of his case as RW-1 and also examined Suraj Raghav-RW-2 who has produced and proved on record the photo copies of the receipts of fee Ex-RW-2/4 to RW-2/7, Papu Ram- RW-3, Narsingh Bahadur-RW-4 and Jai Parkash-RW-5. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the petition preferred on behalf of petitioner-appellant No.1 was dismissed. However, petitioner-appellant No.2 was awarded the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of judgment till he attains majority. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants preferred the instant appeal which was admitted for hearing vide order dated May 2, 2012. Notice of the appeal was also given to the respondent and Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, represented him. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record minutely. 9. While assailing the impugned judgment dated September 9, 2010, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is an undisputed fact that the marriage of appellant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on December 4, 1996 at village Badshahpur and appellant No.2 master Varun was born out of their wedlock on August 25, 1997. 9. While assailing the impugned judgment dated September 9, 2010, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is an undisputed fact that the marriage of appellant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on December 4, 1996 at village Badshahpur and appellant No.2 master Varun was born out of their wedlock on August 25, 1997. Appellant No.1 was turned out of matrimonial home by the respondent on March 28, 1998 when she was in a family way in wearing apparels. All the articles of Istridhan were retained by the respondent and his family members at the time. Mis-appreciation of the evidence and the legal preposition applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case has resulted into miscarriage of justice. In fact, appellant No.1 did not have sufficient means to maintain herself as well as her minor son and they are at the mercy of her parents which necessitated them to prefer a petition before District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, seeking maintenance. The learned lower Court has grossly erred in declining the maintenance to the wife-appellant No.1 and awarding a meagre amount of Rs.4000/- per month to the minor son especially in the circumstances that the respondent is admittedly posted as a Development Officer in LIC and is at present must have been earning Rs.40,000/- approximately per month. The only ground on which the claim of maintenance allowance has been declined by the learned lower Court is that she is drawing salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that appellant No.1 is only a temporary employee and her employment is on contractual basis. She is only a guest teacher and she can be removed from her services as and when any regular teacher is appointed. This fact is evident from RW-5/2 which postulates terms and conditions. Even otherwise, appellant No.1 is posted in GPS Ganduri Middle School, Nagina, Mewat, which is approximately at a distant of about 70 kms from her place of residence i.e. village Badshahpur, Gurgaon. So, an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the expenses being incurred by appellant No.1 for herself as well as for minor child is otherwise insufficient. 10. Even otherwise, appellant No.1 is posted in GPS Ganduri Middle School, Nagina, Mewat, which is approximately at a distant of about 70 kms from her place of residence i.e. village Badshahpur, Gurgaon. So, an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the expenses being incurred by appellant No.1 for herself as well as for minor child is otherwise insufficient. 10. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that awarding a paltry sum of Rs.4000/- per month only to appellant No.2 is also not sufficient to meet the daily requirements. Rs.1000/- per month is being paid towards transportation charges. Besides it, fee to the tune of Rs.1200/- per month is also being paid in the school. With such a petty amount even the daily needs like food, clothing, extra curriculum activities, tuition etc. cannot be fulfilled. So, the impugned order deserves to be modified and the appellants deserve to be awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to secure their life and future. They also deserve to enjoy their life at par with the respondent. 11. These arguments have been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent who supported the impugned judgment dated September 9, 2010. It has been contended that the maintenance allowance has rightly been declined to appellant No.1 by the learned lower Court. She concealed the material facts and did not disclose that she is employed as a teacher in the school and further that she has got rental income as well as income from tuition etc. Sufficient maintenance has also been awarded to the minor son. Moreover, she left the house at her own accord. The respondent neither raised the demand of dowry at any point of time nor caused any sort of harassment to appellant No.1-wife. The impugned judgment being inconsonance with the evidence available on the file and the legal proposition does not deserve any interference by this Court. The instant appeal being without merit is liable to be dismissed with special costs. 12. We have given an anxious thought to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 13. Undeniably, the marriage of appellant No.1 was solemnized with the respondent and out of their wedlock appellant No.2 namely Varun who is at present living with appellant No.1. The parties are living separately since March 28, 1998. 14. 13. Undeniably, the marriage of appellant No.1 was solemnized with the respondent and out of their wedlock appellant No.2 namely Varun who is at present living with appellant No.1. The parties are living separately since March 28, 1998. 14. To appreciate the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to arrive at an adequate/justified amount of maintenance, it is necessary to take notice of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 (b) of the Act defines maintenance which reads as under:- “3. Definitions. (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) ‘Maintenance’ includes- (i) In all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment.” 15. For fixing the quantum of maintenance, the relevant considerations have been depicted in Section 23 of the Act which reads as under:- “23. Amount of maintenance-(1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so, the Court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section(2) or sub-section(3), as the case may be, so far as they are applicable. (2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents under this Act, regard shall be had to- (a) the position and status of the parties; (b) the reasonable wants of the claimant; (c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so; (d) the value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant’s own earnings or from any other source; (e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act.” 16. For computing the maintenance, the basic considerations to be kept in mind were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and others; 1997 (7) SCC 7 wherein following observation was made: “No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she live with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.” 17. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi, (1995) 6 SCC 88 held as under:- “Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharani Kesarkunverba v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1960 SC 1343 , held that Maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and raiment.” 18. In the leading case of Privy Council captioned as Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar; AIR 1929 PC 128 , it was observed that maintenance depends upon a gathering together of all the facts and the situation, amount of free estate, the past life of the married parties and the family and survey of the members, on reasonable view of change of circumstances, possibly required in future, regard having of course be given to the scale and mode of living and the age, habits and wants and class of life of the parties. 19. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari; AIR 1971 SC 234 also expressed its agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Privy Council. 20. Admittedly, appellant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Whereas appellant No.2 is his son. The parties are also living separately since March 28, 1998. 19. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari; AIR 1971 SC 234 also expressed its agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Privy Council. 20. Admittedly, appellant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Whereas appellant No.2 is his son. The parties are also living separately since March 28, 1998. First of all, it would be appropriate to take up the claim of appellant No.1-wife for maintenance. 21. From the pleadings, it is evident that appellant No.1-wife did not disclose the material facts. Rather intentionally concealed the material facts that is with regard to her service and other sources of her income. From the documentary evidence brought on record by the respondent-husband, it stands amply proved that she is working as a teacher in GPS Ganduri Middle School, Nagina, Mewat, though on a contract basis and is getting salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides, it there is no rebuttal to the rental income and the income from tuition etc. Appellant No.1-wife is only entitled to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself or has no means for her maintenance. In the case in hand, she has not only concealed the material facts from Court but even denied her income by way of salary as well as from the other sources. The income so earned by appellant No.1-wife is sufficient to maintain herself. 22. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.1-wife can be removed from services at any time or that her services are on contract basis or that her services can be terminated in case a regular teacher is appointed, is concerned that is of not much relevance at this stage. The facts which are relevant at the time of the institution of the petition are to be taken into account and not what happens in future in case of her removal from service. She can have recourse to the remedies available to her under the law. So there is no ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned lower Court as far as the declining of relief of maintenance to appellant No.1 is concerned. The findings in this regard are rather affirmed. 23. As regards, appellant No.2 minor son, the respondent being the father is legally as well as morally duty bound to maintain him. The findings in this regard are rather affirmed. 23. As regards, appellant No.2 minor son, the respondent being the father is legally as well as morally duty bound to maintain him. He is legally bound to provide him food, clothing, residence, education, medical attendance and treatment and other reasonable wants. Keeping in view the fact that he is still pursuing his studies and is incurring sufficient amount on account of transportation charges, tuition fee, food, clothing and other daily needs of life, a sum of Rs.4000/- per month is not suffice especially when the prices of each and every commodity is touching the sky. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the amount of maintenance awarded to appellant No.2 deserves to be enhanced accordingly. It is observed that appellant No.2 shall be entitled to the maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month from the date of judgment dated September 09, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon. 24. In the light of what has been discussed above, the order declining the maintenance allowance to appellant No.1 is upheld and the instant appeal is disposed of with the modification that appellant No.2 namely Varun shall be entitled to the maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month from the date of judgment dated September 09, 2010 rendered by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, with no order as to costs. ------------------