ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition arises out of a matrimonial matter. Petitioner and respondent have joined in wedlock. Now they are in a deadlock. They were gifted with a son and a daughter. Their children are innocent. They are not parties to the fight between their parents. Husband sought for divorce from his wife in H.M.O.P. No. 61 of 2011, in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar. 2. Wife filed I.A. No. 20 of 2012, under Sections 24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance for herself and also for her daughter and for litigation expenses. Already her husband is taking care of their son, who is now attending college. The said interlocutory application was opposed by the husband tooth and nail. 3. The Trial Court, after considering the averments in the petition, counter as well as the arguments of both sides and the financial capacity of the breadwinner of the family, directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance for mother and daughter from the date of their petition. Rs. 7,500/- towards litigation expenses has been ordered separately. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier in H.M.O.P. No. 69 of 2006, in I.A. No. 8 of 2007, the wife and the daughter were granted Rs. 7,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses was ordered. Of course, the said original petition came to be dismissed for default. But, the said order will not vanish into thin air. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court failed to take note of the said order. The petitioner is already burdened with taking care of his college going son, in the circumstances what was now ordered is very heavy. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit the earlier I.A. No. 8 of 2007 was of the year 2007. Further, there was no regular payment in the said petition. Taking into account the current position, the Trial Court passed the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that now the petitioner has jumped from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to H.D.F.C. Bank only on account of greener pasture. Now, the husband is well paid. He can very well pay the poultry sum now ordered by the Trial Court. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that now the petitioner has jumped from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to H.D.F.C. Bank only on account of greener pasture. Now, the husband is well paid. He can very well pay the poultry sum now ordered by the Trial Court. 8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned order. 9. In matrimonial matters granting of maintenance will arise under different circumstances and different stages. During the pendency, maintenance could be asked for to maintain themselves till the disposal of the case, thereafter, if decision was adverse to the wife, then it will be permanent alimony. The general principle is that the Court should take into account the reasonable needs of the wife and children, necessities of life, mode of living and their compulsive requirements. It should be to meet their essential requirements and it should not be for any extravagance. But, at the same time, the Court must consider the financial (paying) capacity of the husband and his financial constraints, commitments. The means of the wife also to be considered. Simply because a wife is employed, maintenance cannot be refused. To claim maintenance it would be unethical to expect her starve. But, at the same time, if the wife earns well and able to maintain herself, then if she asks maintenance, it nothing bus a method to harass him. If both the spouses are employed and they have children, as nearing, bringing up the children is the responsibility of both, both shall meet/share responsibility of maintenance and other expenses of the children. 10. There is no res judicata for maintenance matters. As and when the parties grow up, the prices gone up and the needs of the children increases, any number of subsequent petitions with relevant averments can be filed. No defence based on Section 11 C.P.C. can be put up in a petition filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 11. Now, in this case, there is a previous H.M.O.P. No. 69 of 2006. In the said pending, by way of an I.A., the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner have sought for maintenance. They were granted maintenance. 12. 11. Now, in this case, there is a previous H.M.O.P. No. 69 of 2006. In the said pending, by way of an I.A., the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner have sought for maintenance. They were granted maintenance. 12. Earlier, the husbands adopted a clever method when maintenance was granted in H.M.O.P. they used to allow the original petition dismissed for default or not pressed the H.M.O.P. so that when the main H.M.O.P. goes, I.A., and orders therein also will go away. But, Courts did not allow this kind of clever husbands. Court started smart more than them. Even if the H.M.O.P. is so dismissed, any order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, will stand as it is and it can be executed as a Civil Court decree even under Order XXI C.P.C. Even E.P. arrest, attachment of salary of the husband can also be sought for. 13. Now, in this case, in the earlier H.M.O.P. Rs. 7,000/- per month has been ordered. As there was passage of time, prices of ever essential galloped and needs have grown, now, revised order has been passed in June, 2015. So, the earlier order need not deter in passing the present order. 14. Petitioner is a Bank employee. Now, he is getting more than Rs. 76,000/-. He is taking care of his son. 15. It was argued that the wife is gainfully employed elsewhere. But, there is no materials to establish it. She is 40 years old. She has to take care of her daughter, who is 15 years old. She is undergoing 10th standard. Her needs will be more. It is the duty of the father to meet the expenses of his daughter. It is his basic duty to maintain his wife. Denial to meet their reasonable expenses would amount to violation of their basic human rights. Considering all the relevant aspects, the Trial Court fixed a reasonable amount of Rs. 10,000/- both for the mother and daughter. Now, litigation expenses is by no means less. The reasons are obvious. Sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses is not abnormal. 16. Considering all these aspects, I do not find that the wife and daughter got a windfall or bonanza from the revision petitioner. 10,000/- both for the mother and daughter. Now, litigation expenses is by no means less. The reasons are obvious. Sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses is not abnormal. 16. Considering all these aspects, I do not find that the wife and daughter got a windfall or bonanza from the revision petitioner. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court except some procedural wrangles, since the learned Trial Judge has not separately ordered maintenance amount for wife and daughter. We modifying it by allocating Rs. 6,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to daughter. Accordingly, this civil revision petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.