Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral). The order under challenge in this petition is Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in an application registered as 58-G/2015 filed in the main case i.e. HMP No.12-G/15/14, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the respondent while awarding maintenance pendente lite @Rs.4,000/- per month in addition to Rs.3000/- already awarded to her by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, in the proceedings she initiated under the Domestic Violence Act. She has also been granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenses. 2. Interestingly enough, the respondent-wife has been awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance, in the proceedings she initiated against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, vide order Annexure P-1. Subsequent to the order Annexure P-1, the petitioner-husband has instituted a divorce petition against her, which is pending disposal in the Court below. It is during the course of proceedings in that petition, she has filed the application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendentelite and litigation expenses on the ground that a sum of Rs.3,000/-, she already getting towards her maintenance consequent upon the order Annexure P-1, is not sufficient for her own maintenance and also that of her school going son Master Vidhan. She, as such, has claimed maintenance pendentelite @Rs.8,000/- per month and also the litigation expenses against her husband, the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, in reply to the application, has denied the claim as laid by the respondent being wrong and came forward with the version that he is running a private dental clinic and earning Rs.10,000- Rs.12,000/- per month. It is out of this income, he is paying her maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month awarded under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. It is further claimed that the respondent is a B. Ed. Teacher and working in private School as well as doing tuition work and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and also hearing learned counsel on both sides, has allowed the application and granted Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance pendentelite to respondent-wife from the date of institution of application and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 5. 4. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and also hearing learned counsel on both sides, has allowed the application and granted Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance pendentelite to respondent-wife from the date of institution of application and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 5. Now if coming to the claims and counter claims as laid on both sides, admittedly the respondent-wife has already been granted maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month in the proceedings she initiated under the Domestic Violence Act. Be it stated that there is no bar to claim maintenance pendentelite under Section 24 of the Act in addition to the maintenance allowance already granted by the competent Court either under the Domestic Violence Act or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The paramount consideration, however, in that situation is the income and the capacity of the husband paying the same. 6. In the case in hand, the petitioner-husband is running a dental clinic at his native village. He has admitted his income as Rs.10,000- Rs.12,000/- per month. Nothing is available on record to show that his income was more than that. Similarly, his claim that the respondent being B.Ed. Teacher is earning Rs.10,000/- per month is also not supported by any other and further material. The pleadings qua earning of the parties on both sides are equally balanced. In such circumstances, it is not known as to how learned trial Judge has guessed the income of the petitioner-husband as Rs.25,000/- per month. No doubt, in such type of cases, the guess work is permissible to reasonable extent. Anyhow, the facts remain that the income of the petitioner-husband is Rs.10,000- Rs.12,000/- or at the most Rs.15,000/- per month. Out of the same Rs.3,000/- is being paid by him to the respondent-wife for her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate has granted the maintenance allowance to her vide order Annexure P-1 after taking into consideration the earning capacity of the petitioner-husband. 7. True it is that a sum of Rs.3,000/- is on lesser side and is not sufficient for the maintenance of the respondent-wife. She, however, is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for getting the same enhanced. The petitioner-husband is also liable to maintain Master Vidhan, their school going son. 7. True it is that a sum of Rs.3,000/- is on lesser side and is not sufficient for the maintenance of the respondent-wife. She, however, is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for getting the same enhanced. The petitioner-husband is also liable to maintain Master Vidhan, their school going son. The respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings, in accordance with law, to seek enhancement in maintenance against her husband, the petitioner, however, so far as these proceedings are concerned, in the opinion of this Court, she is not entitled to the grant of maintenance pendentelite, however, should have been granted only the litigation expenses because it is her husband, the petitioner, who has dragged her in the litigation by filing divorce petition in the trial Court. Since Rs.10,000/- awarded as litigation expenses to her is on lesser side, therefore, irrespective of she has not assailed this order coupled with the factum of she is dragged in litigation upto this Court by filing the present petition, the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the respondent towards litigation expenses is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner husband is directed to pay the enhanced amount and the amount originally awarded, if not already paid, on the next date. 8. With the above observations, the order under challenge is quashed and set aside and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.