ORDER : This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner, who is the Mother, is a lecturer and the respondent, who is the Father, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, started legal battle in the name of the minor child and have approached this Court. 2. The petitioner, is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed on I.A.No.13 in M.C.No.3556/ 2010 on the file of V Additional Family Court at Bangalore, awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month allowing the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the wife, in part from the date of application pending disposal of the petition. 3. The respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1950, (for short ‘the Act’) seeking divorce, raising various contentions. The same is opposed by the petitioner –wife by filing objections to the said petition. During the pendency of the main petition an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for interim maintenance for herself and her daughter along with litigation expenses. The Family Court vide order dated 07.11.2013 allowed the application and directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards maintenance to his daughter. The said order has reached finality. Again on 18.08.2015 the petitioner – wife filed application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking to direct the respondent to pay enhanced interim maintenance to the daughter and maintenance to the petitioner. She sought interim maintenance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- contending that when the interim maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month on 07.11.2013, the daughter was minor. She secured 89% in SSLC in the year 2015 and joined science stream and it is very difficult for her to take care of the education expenses and she has further contended that she has to spend for maintenance of the house for repair and has taken loan for the flat purchased and has to pay an EMI of Rs.18,973/- every month. The respondent is promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and his salary also has reached peak level and as on the date of application he was drawing a sum of Rs.71,000/- per month, contending that the interim maintenance granted earlier at the rate of Rs.4,000/per month to daughter is not sufficient etc. The said application was opposed by the husband by filing objections, denying the averments made in the application. 4. The trial Court considering the application and the objections, by the impugned order dated 03.08.2016 allowed I.A.No.13 in part and directed the husband to pay Rs.7,000/- per month towards enhanced interim maintenance to the daughter from the date of application. The claim made by the wife for maintenance is rejected. The present writ petition is filed only for not granting remaining interim maintenance as sought for in the application. Husband has not filed the writ petition challenging the interim enhanced maintenance made by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri Giridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner wife contended that by the impugned order the Family Court granted only Rs.7,000/per month to the daughter, when the petitioner filed application for enhancement seeking Rs.20,000/- per month, as per the evidence and documents produced, and hence the impugned order is liable to be modified. He would further contend that the Family Court failed to notice that the husband was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and is getting salary of Rs.71,000/- per month. The Family Court ought to have noted that the Father is a Class-I Officer and getting a handsome salary. The daughter is studying in the II year MBBS and it is difficult for the mother to meet the day to day expenses for herself and her daughter and to fulfill the educational expenses. It is further contended that the petitioner has paid Rs.4,590/- towards private tuitions to the daughter. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application in toto instead of awarding interim maintenance at the rate of only Rs.7,000/per month, which is insufficient to meet the expenses of the daughter. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 7. It is further contended that the petitioner has paid Rs.4,590/- towards private tuitions to the daughter. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application in toto instead of awarding interim maintenance at the rate of only Rs.7,000/per month, which is insufficient to meet the expenses of the daughter. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Smt. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the respondent – Husband sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the father has paid the tuition fees of Rs.28,40,000/for the year academic year 201718 for the daughter to continue MBBS Phase I (2nd term) and has also paid fees and other expenses from time to time and he has to comply the order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month and has to pay the interim maintenance every month. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view, that both the mother and father are highly educated and holding responsible posts in the Society working as lecturer and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively. They ought to have settled the issues in cordial terms in the interest of their daughter to give her best career, in stead of fighting for providing day to day expenses and educational expenses to their daughter. Though the counsel for the respondent-husband produced several documents to show that the father has paid the tuition fees, the same is disputed by the petitioner – mother stating that in fact she has paid the fees of Rs.28,40,000/towards MBBS Phase 1 (2nd term) on 02.03.2018 by pledging her gold ornaments. These are all disputed facts which require full fledged trial before the Family Court. This Court is concerned only with regard to the application filed for enhancement and as to whether the trial Court is justified in awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month, when the petitioner sought enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for the daughter. 9. The Family Court considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife, who is a lecturer is getting gross salary of Rs.47,930/- as on December 2015 and net salary of Rs.42,190/- and residing in her own house. 9. The Family Court considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife, who is a lecturer is getting gross salary of Rs.47,930/- as on December 2015 and net salary of Rs.42,190/- and residing in her own house. The respondent-husband was getting gross salary of Rs.52,138/- in the month of September 2015 and net salary of Rs.31,053/-. When the application was filed for interim maintenance on 18.08.2015 the mother was getting gross salary of Rs.47,390/- and net salary of Rs.42,190/-. The learned Judge proceeded to pass orders based on certain documents relied upon by the mother at paragraph 12 and came to the conclusion that the daughter is entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the paramount interest of the daughter and as it is the bounden duty of the father and the mother, who are highly educated to be liberal in bearing the expenses towards their daughter’s who is pursuing education in the Medical Stream. This Court is of the considered opinion, taking into consideration the education, profession and the handsome salary of the petitioner and the respondent, it is their bounden duty to contribute equally for the better prospectus and education of their daughter, who is studying in the II year MBBS. 10. Taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-father is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the daughter’s educational expenses and so also the mother has to equally contribute towards the college fees and educational expenses. Taking into consideration that the matrimonial case is filed in the year 2010, this Court is of the considered opinion, that it is necessary to put an end to the litigation. It is brought to the notice of the Court that there is already a direction by this Court. It is for the parties to cooperate with the Family Court for expeditious disposal of the matrimonial case. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The interim maintenance granted by the Family Court at Rs.7,000/- per month is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month, to the daughter by the respondent – Father. The Family Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 12. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The interim maintenance granted by the Family Court at Rs.7,000/- per month is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month, to the daughter by the respondent – Father. The Family Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 12. It is needless to observe that if the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month is not paid by the Father, it is for the Mother to implement/execute the order in accordance with law.