ORDER : Having been directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month to the respondent – wife, the petitioner – husband has challenged the legality of the order dated 2.1.2018, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, before this Court. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 24.5.2006, in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. According to the petitioner, even prior to the marriage the respondent was working as a Lecturer in the Durga Parameshwari P.U. College, Mandarthi, Udupi District. During the wedlock, on 8.3.2007, the couple was blessed with a girl. After the birth of the daughter, according to the petitioner, the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home; she continued to live with her parents. From 2007 till 2011, the respondent did not resume her matrimonial duties. Therefore, on 10.5.2011, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent, and asked her to resume cohabitation with him. However, the said legal notice did not elicit any response from her. Thus, on 17.7.2012, the petitioner filed a divorce petition on the ground of desertion. Subsequently, the respondent filed her objections. 3. However, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) for seeking an interim maintenance for herself, and for the daughter, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-per month from the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order, dated 2.1.2018, the learned Court directed the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month to the respondent, and to pay Rs.5,000/-per month for the maintenance of the daughter. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. S. Rajashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the maintenance awarded to the daughter. But the petitioner is certainly aggrieved by the maintenance granted to the respondent. According to the learned counsel, since the respondent is working as a Lecturer in a private college, she has sufficient means to contest the proceedings, and to maintain herself. But the petitioner is certainly aggrieved by the maintenance granted to the respondent. According to the learned counsel, since the respondent is working as a Lecturer in a private college, she has sufficient means to contest the proceedings, and to maintain herself. Secondly, relying on the case of MANISH JAIN v. AKANKSHA JAIN (Civil Appeal No.4615/2017 decided by the Apex Court on 30.3.2017), the learned counsel has pleaded that the Court is required to consider whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her to support herself, or not. Since the respondent is earning, she is disentitled from claiming maintenance, and to receive a maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 6. In the case of Manish Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court. 7. There can be no doubt about the principle laid down by the Apex Court. However, while considering an application under Section 24 of the Act, two aspects need to be kept in mind by the concerned court: firstly, that a marriage among the Hindus is not a contract, but is a sacrament, wherein both the parties make certain promises to the other. One of the promises made by the husband to the wife is that he shall look after her for the rest of their life. Secondly, dignity of an individual is a promise made in the preamble of the Constitution of the country. Therefore, the responsibility imposed upon the husband, to look after the wife, is both moral and legal. One of the promises made by the husband to the wife is that he shall look after her for the rest of their life. Secondly, dignity of an individual is a promise made in the preamble of the Constitution of the country. Therefore, the responsibility imposed upon the husband, to look after the wife, is both moral and legal. Thus, the grant of maintenance is not merely limited to a subsistence allowance to be paid to the wife by the husband, but also extends to the sacred promise made by the husband, a promise made publicly, and a legal duty imposed by the law. Therefore, the grant of maintenance should not be seen as patronizing gesture made by the husband towards the wife. But, must be seen as the husband discharging his moral and legal duty towards the wife. It should also be seen as recognition of the dignity of the woman, who has left her earth and home for the sake of the husband and his family members. 8. Although it is true that the respondent is working, although it is true that she has sought for maintenance of Rs.25,000/-per month from the husband, but the fact is that the respondent has been granted a mere token maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month. A mere token maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month is neither illegal nor unreasonable. An interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month has been directed by the learned Court to be paid keeping in mind the fact that the respondent is working. But merely because she is working, she cannot be denied her individual dignity as a wife. 9. Another way to look at the problem is to consider that if the wife were to stay with the husband, obviously despite the fact that she is working woman, still the husband would have spent money for the maintenance of his wife, more than merely Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the amount granted to the respondent is not an unreasonable one. It is merely a token amount to ensure that the respondent is respected by the husband. 10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the directions issued by the learned Court for the payment of interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month to the respondent. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.