ORDER : Dinesh Chandra Somani J. The instant appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-husband assailing the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by Family Court, Jhunjhunu on application filed by the respondent-wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the appellant-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of application, Rs. 8,000/- as cost of the proceedings and Rs. 300/- on each hearing as travelling and other expenses for personal presence of the respondent-wife. 2. The appellant has also filed a miscellaneous application No. 16171/2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 21 days caused in preferring this appeal. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the delay of 21 days caused in preferring this appeal has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant and the same is duly supported by affidavit. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act is allowed and the delay stands condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent-wife has filed a petition against the appellant-husband in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for dissolution of marriage, which was later on transferred to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu for disposal in accordance with law. Along with the divorce petition, respondent-wife also filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance during pendency of the proceedings and claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses. 5. It is stated by the respondent-wife that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 06.06.2010 and out of the wedlock a girl child was born on 16.08.2012, who is presently with the respondent-wife. It is also stated that the appellant is having irrigated agricultural land with well having electric connection and he also earns from supply of water to other farmers and animal husbandry. It is also pleaded that the respondent-wife has no independent source of income sufficient for her subsistence and is fully dependent on her parents. 6. The appellant-husband submitted his reply to the application denying all the material averments of the application and stated therein that the respondent is a trained veterinary compounder and she is earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month from her practice. 6. The appellant-husband submitted his reply to the application denying all the material averments of the application and stated therein that the respondent is a trained veterinary compounder and she is earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month from her practice. It is also stated that the appellant is unemployed and his father took loan from various persons and spent approximately Rs. 10.00 lakhs for further studies of the respondent-wife i.e. diploma in veterinary nursing, diploma in computer and for treatment of the respondent-wife. It is further stated that the appellant came to know that she has been appointed somewhere in the Government department and prayed to dismiss the application filed by the respondent-wife for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses as mentioned here-in-above. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available to us. 9. Indisputably, marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 06.06.2010 and out of the wedlock, a girl child was born in the year 2012, who is living with the respondent-wife. It is also disputed that the respondent-wife is living with her parents having no independent source of income. The appellant-husband did controvert the respondent-wife's contention that he is having irrigated land with well having sufficient water and electric connection and is getting sufficient crop and that he is also earning from supplying water to other farmers and animal husbandry. 10. This is also an admitted fact that the respondent-wife is diploma holder in veterinary nursing but except affidavit of the appellant-husband, there is nothing on record in rebuttal to substantiate his contention that the respondent-wife is earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month from practice as a veterinary compounder or she is employed anywhere and receiving salary as alleged. There is no legal evidence to record a finding that the respondent-wife has any independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her daughter. 11. From perusal of pleadings of the parties and their affidavits, it reveals that the appellant-husband is living with his parents and looking after family agriculture land and animal husbandry etc. There is no legal evidence to record a finding that the respondent-wife has any independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her daughter. 11. From perusal of pleadings of the parties and their affidavits, it reveals that the appellant-husband is living with his parents and looking after family agriculture land and animal husbandry etc. It is moral as well as legal duty of the appellant-husband to maintain his wife and daughter in a respectful manner according to the social and financial status of the family, and he cannot be permitted to take a plea of unemployment to escape from his responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter. 12. In the present facts and circumstances, we find no perversity in granting Rs. 5,000/- per month by the learned Family Court towards interim maintenance of the respondent-wife and her daughter, which may require any interference. 13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.