JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail order dated 24.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2023, whereby order dated 06.07.2023, granting interim maintenance to the respondent herein, under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 (for short “DV Act”), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, H.P., in case No. 3862 of 2022, has been affirmed. 2. Respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘wife’) has approached the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu by filing a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘husband’), seeking protection order and monitory reliefs under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, ibid. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, wife also preferred an application under Section 23(1) of D.V. Act, seeking interim maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/-per month along with litigation expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. It was averred in the application that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.02.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. Two sons, namely, Jai Aditya and Dhruv Ambar were born out of the wedlock. The wife was kept nicely by husband till 2005 and thereafter she was tortured and maltreated mentally, physically and emotionally. It was alleged that the husband had continuously been committing acts of domestic violence against wife and had not been maintaining her and the sons. As per wife, though she was in government job but the same was under New Pension Scheme. The husband was alleged to be serving as Class-1 Officer having monthly salary of more than Rs. 1,50,000/-. He was also alleged to be having sufficient landed property. 4. The husband contested the application of the wife by denying the allegations of torture, maltreatment and domestic violence. It was alleged that the wife is a well-paid State Government employee and has been living separately since 13.02.2021. The husband is stated to have retired getting pension and thus maintaining himself along with his two sons within the limited means. He is also stated to be repaying the outstanding house loan. It was alleged that the wife is a well-paid State Government employee and has been living separately since 13.02.2021. The husband is stated to have retired getting pension and thus maintaining himself along with his two sons within the limited means. He is also stated to be repaying the outstanding house loan. As per husband, the wife was earning monthly salary of approximately Rs.70,000/-,whereas he has quantified his basic pension at Rs.63,300/-and after reduction of commuted value he is stated to be getting Rs. 37,980/- plus dearness allowance as pension. He has also denied to be the owner of landed property. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, H.P. allowed the application of the wife and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the filing of application. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, H.P., has been affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, vide impugned order passed in appeal filed by the husband under Section 29 of the DV Act. 6. The wife has chosen not to appear before this Court despite service of notice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 8. Learned Trial Court has noted in its order that both the parties had filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities. On the basis of information provided in the affidavits, the salary of wife has been found to be Rs. 67,516/-per month. The husband has been found to be retired State Administrative Service Officer drawing pension of around Rs. 80,000/-. 9. Learned Appellate Court has also not found the above factual findings to be incorrect. 10. The husband specifically alleged that both the sons who were into professional education were being maintained by him, whereas the wife claimed to be maintaining one son. 11. Learned Trial Court had recorded that the children were living with husband. 12. Both the Courts have found the wife entitled to maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month, only on the premise that her husband is a retired State Administrative Service Officer and she is entitled to maintain the same living style as was available to her in the matrimonial home. 13. 12. Both the Courts have found the wife entitled to maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month, only on the premise that her husband is a retired State Administrative Service Officer and she is entitled to maintain the same living style as was available to her in the matrimonial home. 13. No doubt, the factum of wife being an earning hand does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance, nonetheless, while assessing the relevant factors, the quantum of income earned by wife as compared to that of the husband cannot be ignored. Other relevant factors, such as, the liabilities incurred by respective spouses and the disadvantage in status/position, if any, suffered by wife has also to be considered. Such consideration, however, can be possible by objective consideration of the material made available by the parties. 14. Both the Courts in the instant case have proceeded to grant maintenance in favour of the wife by presuming her disadvantageous position vis-a-vis, the family status of the husband without their being any averment to that effect made in the application or any other material placed on record. 15. Monthly salary of Rs. 67,516/- earned by wife cannot be said to be inequitable to the pension earned by the husband, therefore, it could not have been a circumstance to presume disadvantageous position/status being held by the wife, more particularly when the sons have been found to be living with husband. In addition, there was no specific denial to the averments made by the husband as to his liability towards repayment of house loan etc. 16 The wife had also not been able to indicate any specific burden or liability, except to maintain herself, on her earnings. 17. The purpose to grant maintenance to wife or/and children is to prevent them from destitution and vagrancies. The tool to claim maintenance cannot be used to penalize the other spouse. 18. Once, the learned trial court had found both the children to be living with husband and there being no contrary observation of learned Appellate Court, ignoring such a vital fact while deciding the claim for interim maintenance is highly improper. 19. The order of grant of interim maintenance in favour of the wife in the facts and circumstances of instant case is not inconformity with the settled principles of law as the impugned order has been passed without assessment of relevant factors and hence warrants interference. 20. 19. The order of grant of interim maintenance in favour of the wife in the facts and circumstances of instant case is not inconformity with the settled principles of law as the impugned order has been passed without assessment of relevant factors and hence warrants interference. 20. In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2023, is set aside. 21. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.