ORDER : P. Devadass, J. 1. Actually the Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against his wife and daughter. As usual, the revision petitioner and the respondent were happy couples at the start of their married life. A female child born to them brought them happiness. Thereafter, by quirk of events, the love between them now long last. It is being evidenced by the petitioner seeking permanent separation from his wife, in other words divorce. 2. Pending the H.M.O.P., she filed pendente-lite petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. It was contended before the trial Court that she is an earning member. She is well placed in life. This was brushed aside by the trial Court as it was not supported by evidence. The trial Court awarded Rs. 15,000/- to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the child as monthly maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- to defray litigation expenses. The husband is not happy with this order. That is how he filed this revision. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is highly qualified. She is a B.E. graduate. She is the Correspondent of British Matric School in Trichy. Even in the marriage invitation, she was shown as Correspondent of the said school. She has means. In the circumstances, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to her and child is unsustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife would contend she is only a trustee, she also discharges the duty of the correspondent. It is only a honorary post. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it is their own school. She is speaking falsehood. Correspondent in a school is a big thing. Correspondent is all in all. 7. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned order. 8. Section 24 has been included in the Hindu Marriage Act to see that a woman does not suffer out of financial support. It includes her subsistence, clothing and to attend the Court and to have shelter. Section 24 also provides for litigation expenses. Now a days, the cost of litigation is also high as the cost of living is on the rise. 9. Grant of maintenance is based on certain guiding principles. Means of the husband is his financial capacity. It includes her subsistence, clothing and to attend the Court and to have shelter. Section 24 also provides for litigation expenses. Now a days, the cost of litigation is also high as the cost of living is on the rise. 9. Grant of maintenance is based on certain guiding principles. Means of the husband is his financial capacity. First thing is obligation, the burden that he has to maintain his wife and child. 10. Now, in this case, the trial Court noticed that the revision petitioner was earning Rs. 80,000/- per month. Rs. 80,000/- per month is a good salary. He is employed in BHEL in Trichy, BHEL is a Central Government undertaking. It is very difficult to get a job in BHEL. Petitioner is stated to be a Systems Engineer in BHEL, Trichy. It gives lot of perquisites and benefits. Being an employee in BHEL is a bride. Petitioner is a double graduate viz. B.E., M.S. He is well placed. 11. On the other hand Ranjana Devi is not less qualified. She is a B.E. graduate. Now, she is Correspondent of a School. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she being correspondent of a school has lot of income, to maintain herself and this aspect has been overlooked by the trial Court. 13. He has been repelled by the other side by submitting that Correspondent is an honorary post. No money, except post. This aspect has been considered by the trial Court. Generally there won't be any salary for the correspondent. 14. The correspondent is an important person in a school. For admission, the parents and others are calling on the Correspondent. But, there is no material to show that the appellant is in receipt of money. 15. Of course, she is under the support of her father. But it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. I call it as 'pious' duty. This duty commences from the day when he tie three knots gently around her neck. There is completely dearth of materials to show that the respondent was in receipt of money. The revision petitioner is employed in BHEL. He is receiving a good salary. There cannot be any objection for him to give maintenance to his child. He cannot escape from giving maintenance to his wife. There is completely dearth of materials to show that the respondent was in receipt of money. The revision petitioner is employed in BHEL. He is receiving a good salary. There cannot be any objection for him to give maintenance to his child. He cannot escape from giving maintenance to his wife. The revision petitioner is having financial capacity to pay her maintenance. 16. In view of the foregoings, I do no find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court. Thus the order granting maintenance to the wife and child + litigation expenses are maintained. 17. This spouses are young and they are having a child aged 2 years, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, as mandated under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and Code of Civil Procedure, shall take every endeavor to reconcile this couple. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.