JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The learned counsel appearing, for, the petitioner contests, the awarding, of per mensem maintenance pendente lite, borne in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- vis-a-vis, the respondent, his purportedly legally wedded wife. The afore contest, is, hinged, upon, the factum qua despite, the respondent being employed, as a Aganwari Worker, in, contemporaneity, to, the institution of the application and hers drawing therefrom a sum of Rs. 4,400/- per month, as, salary, hence, the afore amount was required to be pleaded in the apposite petition, whereas, its remaining un-pleaded therein, thereupon, the petition is stained, with a vice of mala-fides and no relief is grantable, vis-a-vis, the respondent herein. 2. However, the merit, if any, of the afore submission is blunted by the factum, qua even if, the afore argument, has some worth, its vigour being eroded by the factum that a male child, named, Anshul, being born from the apt cohabitation, (i) and when all the requisite expenses towards the maintenance of the afore child, including, his education, also is required to be expended, or borne, (ii) thereupon, necessitates the awarding, of, the afore sums of money qua therewith and besides the impugned awarding being deficient or insufficient, hence is also in tandem therewith, rather, enjoined to be borne in mind, conspicuously when it is encapsulated, in a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Others, (1997) AIR SC 3397, relevant paragraph no. 6 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "6. Wife says that the husband has not given true account of his assets and income and has rather suppressed the same. Though the wife has not been able to give any specific evidence to support her contention but circumstance show that the husband has not given true state of affairs of his income. He has pleaded that both his wife and his eldest daughter are earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but there is no basis for such an allegation. The fact remains that the wife has no source of income and she is also maintaining her eldest unmarried daughter. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain her unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. 10,000/- per month but there is no basis for such an allegation. The fact remains that the wife has no source of income and she is also maintaining her eldest unmarried daughter. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain her unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. In this case since the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and her two unmarried daughters one of whom is living with wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing the maintenance pendente-lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that section operates in its own field." (i) qua, the, statutory right vested, in, a spouse to claim per mensem pendente-lite maintenance, against, the opponent litigant, also being recourseable, for, ensuring maintenance of a child born, from the apt cohabitation, of the contesting litigants. (ii) thereupon, any sum of money derived, by the respondent from hers being employed, as an Aganwari Worker, is, hence per se insufficient and rather is deficient to take care of the requisite expenses of the minor child. 3. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The order impugned before this Court is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The records, if received, be sent back forthwith.