ORDER : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Padampur in disposal of the Interim Application No. 02/04 of 2012-13 arising out of Matrimonial Appeal No. 01/98 of 2012-13. 3. Short fact as borne out from the case record is that in the application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of the husband (present opposite party) for divorce, the wife as opposite party filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of CPC claiming a sum of Rs. 4000/- each as interim maintenance per month in favour of both mother and child, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to meet medical and educational expenses for the child (present petitioner No. 2). In filing the application, the wife has submitted that she is residing separate from the husband and the petitioner No. 2 i.e. minor child is also prosecuting his study in class-II in Aurobindo Sikhya Kendra, Padampur. In making the claim, the wife has submitted that her husband is working as a Govt., teacher and drawing salary of Rs. 16,740/- per month and apart from salary he is also getting some other benefits from the agricultural sources out of the land belonging to him as well as his family. She has also admitted that she is working as a Mini Anganwadi Worker on honorarium basis. In response to which the husband-opposite party filed an application inter alia contending therein that in view of limitation of criminal case against the husband under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of the DP. Act, the opposite party-husband was arrested and forwarded to jail custody on 28.02.2009. He was released on 07.03.2009 by virtue of an order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Padampur in Bail Application No. 67 of 2009. So far as the income from agricultural sources, the husband (O.P.) denied to have receiving any amount on account of the same and submitted that he depends only on his remuneration. 4. He was released on 07.03.2009 by virtue of an order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Padampur in Bail Application No. 67 of 2009. So far as the income from agricultural sources, the husband (O.P.) denied to have receiving any amount on account of the same and submitted that he depends only on his remuneration. 4. Considering the rival submissions of the parties the lower court while deciding the I.A. No. 02/04 of 2012-13, rejected the application on the premises that the petitioner is already in receipt of interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- and further a sum of Rs. 500/- as interim maintenance for minor child by virtue of an order in a proceeding of under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The claim of the wife-petitioner has also been declined on the premise that she is a working-lady and draws some remuneration. 5. During course of argument, it has been brought to my notice by filing a memo showing salary slip concerning the opposite party-husband. The pay slip is in relation to the month of December, 2014 and the pay slip clearly indicates a gross receipt of Rs. 24,380/- whereas net amount of receiving is Rs. 18,255/-. Said pay slip has been obtained under the RTI, Act and there cannot be denial to the same. 6. On perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner in the application for maintenance, this Court finds that the wife has claimed the receipt of salary by her husband is Rs. 16,740/-. In its opposition, the husband has no denial to the receipt of the salary which he is receiving for continuing as a Govt., teacher except objecting to the income through agricultural sources. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the respective parties and taking into consideration the pay slip filed by the petitioners during course of argument, though I find the wife is in receipt of some maintenance and some remuneration but that may not be sufficient for sustenance of a mother and a child with due dignity in comparison to the life style maintained by the husband. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that there has been no proper consideration by the trial court while considering the question of interim maintenance in favour of the wife as well as the minor child. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that there has been no proper consideration by the trial court while considering the question of interim maintenance in favour of the wife as well as the minor child. The law is fairly well settled that wife is also required to maintain the status equal to that of the husband. There is no denial to the fact that the husband is a Govt., teacher and there is also no denial of the fact that he was drawing a sum of Rs. 24,380/- as salary in 2014 and further looking to the pay slip, it is also amply clear that the husband had received net salary of Rs. 18,255/- in the month of December, 2014. 8. Considering the aspect reflected hereinabove and taking into account the salary of the husband of the petitioner No. 1, this Court is inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Padampur and allowing Interim Application at the instance of the wife, consequently this Court directs the husband to pay a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Two Thousand only) per month towards maintenance to the wife and further sum of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand only) to the minor child from the date of the application and to release the arrears on account of interim maintenance within a period of two months in two equal instalments from the date of communication of this order. Apart from the interim maintenance as directed hereinabove, this Court further directs the husband-opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation as well as medical expenses in favour of the wife and minor child which amount shall also be paid within a period of one month from the date of order. 9. The CMP stands allowed with above direction.