Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.— (1) This civil revision has been filed by Vinay Kumar Dixit against Order dated 22-11-2005 passed by Addl Principal Judge, Family Court Lucknow in Misc Case No-192 C of 2004 Smt Renu Vs Vinay Kumar Dixit, by which Court below has allowed the application under section 24 0f Hindu Marriage Act and directed the revisionist to pay Rs 2000/- as cost of the suit and Rs 1400 p.m. as interim maintenance to the respondent from the date of order. (2) A suit under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act no-349 of 2003 was filed Vinay Kumar dixit against his wife Smt Renu in the Family Court Lucknow. During pendency of the proceeding wife smt Renu moved an application alleging that plaintiff is earning Rs 8000/- from salary and rent from a house so he be directed to pay Rs 4000/ p.m. to her as cost of the litigation and maintenance of herself and her son. In the objection to the application plaintiff denied that his income is not what the defendant has stated. He has got service after death of his father. The amount claimed is too excessive. (3) After going through the submissions and papers the Additional Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved this civil revision was filed. (4) Heard learned counsel for Revisionist and learned counsel for respondent. (5) It was argued from the side of revisionist that his monthly income is only Rs 3551/-p.m. so the maintenance amount is too excessive. On the strength of decisions of Smt Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs District judge Dehradun and others 1997 A.W.C. 245(S.C.), Raghvendra Singh Chaudhary Vs Smt Seema Bai A.I.R.1989 Madhya Ptadesh 259, Prasana Kumar Patra Vs Smt Sureswari A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 12, Dinesh Gijubhai Vs Smt Usha A.I.R. Bombay 173 it was submitted that maintenance amount pendente lite can not be more than one fifth of the monthly income of the husband. (6) Refuting the arguments advanced by revisionist it was submitted that the amount is not excessive but it is lesser considering the income of the plaintiff. (7) Considered the rival submissions of the parties. There is no evidence on record to show that the husband has any rental income. Court below has on the basis of Salary Certificate, held husband's income to be Rs. (7) Considered the rival submissions of the parties. There is no evidence on record to show that the husband has any rental income. Court below has on the basis of Salary Certificate, held husband's income to be Rs. 3551/- p/m. (8) In the case of Raghvendra Singh Choudhary V. Smt. Seema Bai, (supra) it has been held that; "Regarding quantum of maintenance, the respondent claimed maintenance only @ Rs. 100/- p.m. and this was not opposed by the appellant. The trial Court has fixed maintenance after recording the evidence. It held that the appellant was then receiving Rs. 450/- p.m. and 1/3rd of the amount should be given as maintenance to the wife. It is not disputed that since then prices have increased and the salary has also been revised upwards. Usually pendente lite maintenance is granted at 1/5th of the husband's average net income after deducting the wife's income, if any. No material has been placed by either of the parties to show that what is the present income of the appellant. We can safely assume it Rs. 750/- p.m. and, therefore, 1/5th of the amount will come to Rs. 150/- p.m. So the order of the learned single Judge is modified by reducing the maintenance from Rs. 250A p.m. to Rs. 150/- p.m." (9) In the case of Prasana Kumar Patra V. Smt. Sureswari Patrani (supra) it has been held that ; "There is no doubt that the wife is entitled to certain amount of maintenance pendente lite. But the question is what should be the reasonable amount? As for maintenance pendente lite, courts generally allow it at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions. Under the Indian Divorce Act the maximum alimony pendente lite has been fixed at one-fifth the next income. Under the Hindu Marriage Act no such limit has been prescribed. In the absence of special circumstances, maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the husband. As regards litigation expenses it should be reasonable. Under the Indian Divorce Act the maximum alimony pendente lite has been fixed at one-fifth the next income. Under the Hindu Marriage Act no such limit has been prescribed. In the absence of special circumstances, maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the husband. As regards litigation expenses it should be reasonable. In determining the quantum of maintenance the conduct of the parties is also relevant; it is permissible for the court to go into the conduct of the wife with reference to the question whether she should be held to have forfeited her claim for maintenance in sympathy of her claim." (10) In the case of Dinesh Gijubhai Mehta, V. Usha Dinesh Mehta, (supra) it has been held that ; "The legal obligation of the husband to earn and maintain the wife itself is in the ultimate analysis, the creature of this social concept. Wife's claim for bare needs including shelter may in given cases require ignoring the mere social as against legal obligations. Some members may require special treatment. That is why Section 24 speaks of fixing a "reasonable amount". Reasonableness itself is no doubt a relative term. Essentially the question is one of balancing several competing claims. Ordinarily reasonableness would require ensuring the receipt of the same amenities and comforts by the wife, as she was getting when residing with the husband as a member of his family minus the reduction necessitated by separation and creation of two establishments. This can be achieved by providing for wife's separate residence and dividing the balance of the husband's net income equally between all the members. In the event of any one or more others of the family being earning members, their income can be taken into account for reducing the husband's liability towards them, even though wife herself may not be able to claim any share there from. Thus the problem does not admit of any inflexible formula. These are a few of the many relevant factors. All this, however, will not be relevant if the wife is disabled from claiming such maintenance due to any legal impediment." (11) In the case of Mukan Kunwar V. Ajeetchand (supra) it has been held that ; "If the Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to maintenance and expenses then it has to consider their quantum. All this, however, will not be relevant if the wife is disabled from claiming such maintenance due to any legal impediment." (11) In the case of Mukan Kunwar V. Ajeetchand (supra) it has been held that ; "If the Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to maintenance and expenses then it has to consider their quantum. As for maintenance pendente lite Courts generally allow it at one-fifth the income of the respondent after deductions on account of income-tax and provident fund. Under the Indian Divorce Act the maximum alimony pendente lite has been fixed at one-fifth the net income. In the Hindu Marriage Act no such limit has been prescribed. In the absence of special circumstances maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the respondent. As for expenses of litigation there should be no difficulty in assessing what the reasonable expenses should be." (12) In the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (supra) it has been held that; "Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. 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 lived 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." (13) A perusal of the impugned order reveals that learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has on the basis of salary certificate held that the husband is getting Rs. 3551/- per month after deduction. The above decisions referred by the revisionist clearly lay down a principle that normally 1/5 of the Husband's income after all deductions will be the reasonable amount for maintenance pendente lite to the wife. (14) Judging the husband's income on above criteria Rs.700/- per month is an ideal amount to be provided to the wife as maintenance pendente lite considering the entire facts of the case. (15) In view of above, the revisionist is liable to be allowed the maintenance amount is reduced to Rs. 700/- per month from Rs. (14) Judging the husband's income on above criteria Rs.700/- per month is an ideal amount to be provided to the wife as maintenance pendente lite considering the entire facts of the case. (15) In view of above, the revisionist is liable to be allowed the maintenance amount is reduced to Rs. 700/- per month from Rs. 1400/- per month awarded by Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow. The revision is thus liable to be decided accordingly and decided accordingly. (16) It is noteworthy that the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending since 2003. Before that parties are living separately for more than last three years. Hence, considering the mental agony of the parties, the Court which is ceased with the matter is directed to decide the case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 339 of 2003 expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date when certificated copy of this order is produced before him. To achieve this target the court concerned will be very tough in granting adjournments and will deal with firm hand on the delaying tactics of the parties using them. _____________