JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. These are the two appeals. Appeal No. 127 of 2017 is preferred by the wife, Smt. Reshu Dudeja whereas, Appeal No. 122 is preferred by the husband, Deepak Dudeja. For the purposes of convenience, Appeal No. 127 of 2017 is taken as a leading appeal. 2. In the principal Suit, being Suit No. 42 of 2015, Sri Deepak Dudeja vs. Smt. Reshu Batra, where an issue with regard to the dissolution of marriage between the parties to the Suit as held on 5th January, 2000, is a subject matter of consideration. 3. It was pleaded in the suit that as a consequence of the marriage and the relationship between the husband and wife, the appellant No. 2, i.e. son Manav Dudeja was born on 26th May, 2001. At the time, when the controversy arose, the son Manav Dudeja was studying in a School at Dehradun called as Doon International School and was a student of Class-X. 4. Primarily, the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by Deepak Dudeja, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Although, some of the grounds which has been taken in the principal Suit has also been pleaded in the application filed by the defendant appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below, but since the intricacies of the pleadings between the parties to the suit is yet to undergo the test of evidence and findings are yet to be given by the Court after appreciating respective evidence, on the basis of the respective pleadings, it would not be appropriate to record any evidence or consider any pleadings of the parties at this stage when the controversy is confined to its consideration on an application under Section 24 of the Act. As such, any finding recorded touching the cruelty and desertion will have a bearing on the principal suit. Thus, Court refrains itself from recording any finding on the same. While the suit was pending, the opposite party had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, being paper No. 31-A, seeking pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses. 5. In those proceedings, under Section 24, it is an admitted case that the instant marriage was the second marriage as both the appellant and respondent were earlier divorced. While the suit was pending, the opposite party had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, being paper No. 31-A, seeking pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses. 5. In those proceedings, under Section 24, it is an admitted case that the instant marriage was the second marriage as both the appellant and respondent were earlier divorced. In application under Section 24, the case of the respondent was that she has got no source of earning and since she has to meet her day-to-day requirement also, coupled with the fact that she has to maintain the child who is student of Class-X and gradually since he is on growing stage, she needs to meet the family liability. In the absence of any source of income, there is dearth of money with the wife. 6. In the application, thus, filed she contended that the plaintiff to the suit and appellant, herein, is a person of an affluent means because he owns two big companies whose offices are situated at Signapore and Regional Office at Noida. She contended that the two companies which the appellant has, namely, C.I.D. Machines P.T.I. Limited, having its Head Office at Singapore, is turn over of Rs. 5 crores to 25 crores and Unishurtus Machines Pvt. Ltd. which is a private limited company, and is manufacturer of P.C.B. Assembly Machines, etc. which has got its Head Office, at Greater Noida and have a sufficient turn over. 7. She further contended in support of pleading for the application under Section 24 that the husband has also got immovable property at various places. She also pleaded that the appellant has got three cars, namely, Fortuner, Honda City and Maruti Alto. 8. Looking to the aforesaid backdrop, she stated that he has got sufficient income and it would be deemed that the standard of living of the appellant was of higher level. Hence, under Section 24, she was entitled for a maintenance, which would be sufficient to maintain the standard of living of the wife compatible to the standard of living of the husband. Hence, under the aforesaid backdrop, the respondent claimed that she may be granted a pendente lite maintenance @ Rs. 1 crore p.m. and a litigation expenses of Rs. 25 lacs. 9. Hence, under the aforesaid backdrop, the respondent claimed that she may be granted a pendente lite maintenance @ Rs. 1 crore p.m. and a litigation expenses of Rs. 25 lacs. 9. On the said application, the appellant submitted his objection by way of paper No. 31-A and denied the allegation pertaining to the quantum of income accruing to the appellant, also that, she has exaggerated the amount than what was actually accruing to the appellant. He submitted that the actual income which he is receiving from his business is Rs. 50,000/- p.m. and he further denied the fact that the company named by the wife, he is not the owner of it. Hence that cannot be included for the purpose of calculating the amount of maintenance to be granted to the respondent wife. 10. He further submitted that apart from the limited resources, he has to meet out the various loans liabilities including the loan liability towards the EMI payable to the loan for cars. 11. To show that the respondent would not be entitled for maintenance under Section 24, because the prime consideration for passing order under 24 is that either of the spouses has got no sufficient means to sustain him and herself. Appellant submitted that the respondent is a qualified lady having done her B.A. and B.Ed. and has done her N.T.T. course and is teaching in private school and taking tuition and from her engagement, sufficient income is accruing to the wife, thus she would not be entitled for the same. 12. The wife to show and support her pleading with regard to inflow of income to the respondent had downloaded the documents from the website showing the income which was accruing to the husband, which, according to the husband, was not admissible in evidence in view of the bar created by Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. He further submitted that since time of desertion which chanced about eight years back, the wife has been able to sustain herself for long ten years period, it would be presumed that she has sufficient source of income and, that is why, she has been able to cope up and survived for last two years despite the alleged crisis. 14. He further submitted that since time of desertion which chanced about eight years back, the wife has been able to sustain herself for long ten years period, it would be presumed that she has sufficient source of income and, that is why, she has been able to cope up and survived for last two years despite the alleged crisis. 14. The learned Court below, after considering the rival contentions, and considering the evidences adduced by the parties pertaining to the respective source of income, has come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. be granted to the respondent as maintenance and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a litigation expenses. It is against this order, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 15. On scrutiny of the impugned order and the pleadings raised in the grounds of the appeal by the appellant was to the effect that the findings recorded by the Court below while awarding the amount is improper and in excess in the exercise of jurisdiction and is resulted into the miscarriage of justice. 16. Thus, when Court fails to record any finding with regard to the effect of the income which was accruing to the appellant from the companies, ranging between Rs. 5 crore to 25 crore cannot be considered for considering application under Section 24. She further prays in the memorandum of appeal that the maintenance which has to be granted by the Court, the Court has to ensure that the same commensurates with the income and status of the living of the husband. No such instance has been considered by the Court below while deciding the application under Section 24. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 7 has held in paragraph 8 as under:- “8. Wife has no fixed abode of residence she says, she is living in Gurudwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand husband has sufficient income and a house to him. Wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the Courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the Courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. 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. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month payable by respondent-husband to the appellant-wife.” 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the fact of case and evidence brought on record pertaining to the inflow of the income of the appellant, which is shown to be at a sufficient higher side and when, he admits the factum of marriage, and he admits that a son was born who at the relevant time and pursuing his 10th standard, it goes without saying that with the passage of time and looking to the standard of living, which is gradually at a spurt and coupled with the fact that the child when he steps into phases of higher education, the expenditure increases in multifold. Apart from it, the reason which has been assigned by the Court that since she has sustained for ten years, it would be deemed that she had sufficient source of earning, is not a parameter to be considered at the stage when application under Section 24 is under consideration. Merely a lady has been able to survive for ten years, doesn’t mean that her need of maintenance has extinguished because the maintenance in each case of matrimony is a consistent phenomenon, which will ever exist and continue. Merely a lady has been able to survive for ten years, doesn’t mean that her need of maintenance has extinguished because the maintenance in each case of matrimony is a consistent phenomenon, which will ever exist and continue. If a lady has somehow managed to survive, it will not extinguish her need for maintenance. 19. Another view which has been taken by the Court that the proof of income as placed on record by the wife which she has downloaded from the internet which shows that the income of the appellant was much more than what he has pleaded in his objection under Section 24. But the Court’s view of declining to accept the sanctity of the said statements of the income as submitted by the wife by placing the documents on record, downloaded from the website, did not satisfy the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, is without any reason and rationale. The reference of 65-B in relation to evidence of electronic media could be when the same is disputed, when the contents of information depicting as income of husband is not denied, it will amount to be admission though for an interlocutory proceedings. Thus, it should be read as under Section 65-B is a precaution for considering electronic evidence when fact is in dispute. The impact of under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as inserted by the Act No. 21 of 2000 w.e.f. 17.10.2000 is procedural in nature and could be enforced by a party claming a particular document thus obtained from electronic media. 20. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, coupled with the income of the respondent, which has been projected by the wife, by placing the document on record, this Court feels that the amount of maintenance which has been granted to the respondent is much less looking to status and standard of living which she would be treated to be used to. 21. Thus, this Court feels that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence and the stand of the respective parties in its true spirit and looking to the overall scenario, the quantum of expenses which a family has to undertake looking to the status, this Court feels that there has to be enhancement in the amount awarded by the Court below and, thus, the amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- p.m. to a sum of Rs. 45,000/- p.m. this Court feels which will meet the purpose for the maintenance of the child and the mother. 22. The amount of litigation expenses which has been granted by the Court to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- is yet again absolutely negligible looking to trend of fees demanded by the Advocates etc. It had been a common experience that these days the litigation itself entails a sufficient amount of expenditure payable towards the counsel fee as well as the other allied expenses to pursue the proceedings and, particularly, the experience cannot be ruled out one isolated proceedings gradually multiply like a mushroom and that has also to be considered while determining the litigation expenses. 23. Hence, the Court feels that the consolidated amount of litigation expenses as granted by the Court below as Rs. 10,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- as one time payment. 24. The respondent is directed to pay the said enhanced amount and its arrear from the date of the application. 25. Looking to the interest of the party and cutting short the controversy between them so that the destiny of their inter se relationship may be brought to a logical end at the earliest and which has been contemplated under law, this Court requests the Family Court to decide the initial Suit No. 42 of 2015, within a period of six months from today in the light of the provisions contained and intended by the Legislature under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 26. Subject to the above observations, the present appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal No. 122 of 2017 27. Since both the appeals arise from a common order wherein in the leading Appeal, the wife has challenged the order for enhancement of the amount and Appeal No. 122 of 2017, the husband challenged the order for reducing the amount, but, since this Court has already partly allowed the Appeal No. 127 of 2017, the instant Appeal of the husband, being Appeal No. 122 of 2017 is dismissed.