ORDER : (V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Family Court at Vellore in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in FCOP No.219 of 2024. 2. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. The petitioner married the respondent on 30.08.2018 at Vellore. There are no issues from the wedlock. Due to disputes and differences, the parties separated. Thereafter, a petition was filed under 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in December 2022 seeking for dissolution of the marriage. The petition was numbered as FCOP No.313 of 2022. When the matter was taken up on 21.07.2023, there was no representation on the side of the respondent/wife. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as infructuous, on the request of the husband. Thereafter, he initiated a proceeding for divorce in FCOP No.219 of 2023. He has invoked Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . 3. I need not go into merits of the allegations made in the petition for disposal of this revision. 4. On service of summons, the respondent / wife filed a petition seeking interim maintenance. She pleaded that the husband is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month in 'Concentrix', a software company in Bangalore. She pleaded that she has no independent income in order to sustain herself and to meet her essential expenses. She pleaded that she requires a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. Notice was ordered in this application and a counter was received from the husband. 5. The husband pleaded that he is employed in the company, which the wife asserts, but is being paid only Rs.67,000/- per month. He added that he has expenses towards rent, food and travel, housing loan-EMI and medical expenses. He urged that the wife is working in 'Accion Labs' and is earning a monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. He pleaded that she has purchased a property worth about Rs.70,00,000/- and is paying a monthly EMI Rs.68,000/-. To substantiate this plea, he enclosed an online copy of CIBIL Report of the wife and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. A new strategy has been adopted in this litigation. The husband took out an application seeking interim maintenance. He wants, his wife to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as monthly maintenance and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. 6. A new strategy has been adopted in this litigation. The husband took out an application seeking interim maintenance. He wants, his wife to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as monthly maintenance and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Both the parties filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities as directed by the Supreme Court Rajnesh v. Neha , 2021 2 SCC 324 . 7. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the wife has no independent income and, therefore, ordered the petition as prayed for. He granted three months time to pay the arrears. Consequently, he dismissed the petition filed by the husband seeking maintenance. The husband has challenged the order of the trial Court granting maintenance to the wife. 8. When the matter is came up for admission 09.01.2025, Mr.Arun Anbumani asserted that the wife is working in the 'Infinite Computer Solutions India Ltd.' in Bangalore and hence, she is not entitled to any amount towards maintenance. Taking into consideration this plea, I issued notice. 9. Mr.Arun served notice on the respondent. On 23.01.2025, the respondent Ms.Janani @ Krishna is present in Court. She wanted time to get ready with the matter. Hence, I posted the matter today. 10. I heard Mr.Arun Anbumani for the civil revision petitioner and Ms.Janani @ Krishna, Party-in-Person. Permission was granted to the Party- in-Person to make her submissions in the matter. 11. Mr.Arun Anbumani drew my attention to a CIBIL report which stands in the name of Krishna B. Meenakshi Sundaram and points out that a loan for a sum of Rs.68 lakhs has been availed by the wife and she is paying an EMI of Rs.64,479/-. He asserted that the wife is working in 'Infinite Computer Solutions India Private Limited' and as she is employed, she is not entitled to any amount towards maintenance. He further stated that between the period of January, 2020 and April, 2020, she was employed; yet again between December, 2020 and July, 2021, also she was employed; and finally from July to September, 2024, she was employed in an institution called 'CES India Private Ltd.'. Therefore, he pleaded that the affidavit filed by the wife is an act of perjury, as she has withheld information regarding her employment, from the Court. Therefore, he pleads that the order of the Trial Court be set aside and the application be dismissed. 12. Therefore, he pleaded that the affidavit filed by the wife is an act of perjury, as she has withheld information regarding her employment, from the Court. Therefore, he pleads that the order of the Trial Court be set aside and the application be dismissed. 12. Per Contra, Ms.Janani, on a pointed question from this Court stated that she secured employment in 'Infinite Computer Solutions India Private Limited' only from December, 2024. She adds that she is residing in her parents house, who are providing her, with the necessities. She states that her employment with Infinite Computer Solutions India Private Limited is not a permanent one, but is based on hours that she spends working for the company. She states that she is unable to maintain herself and pleads that the order of the maintenance be sustained. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. 14. The position of law as regards the quantum of maintenance has been recently settled by the Supreme Court in Dr. Rajiv Varghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3367 . The Supreme Court, while reversing a judgment of this Court, held that the wife is accustomed to a standard of living in her matrimonial home. Therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, she is entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled had she continued in her matrimonial home. In the celebrated case in Rajnesh v. Neha , 2021 2 SCC 324 , the Supreme Court held that it was the sacrosanct duty of the husband to maintain the wife. Reading both the judgments together, I conclude that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife in the same manner that she would have been maintained had she continued to live in the matrimonial home. 15. Applying these principles on the facts of the case, in the absence of any proof of employment, I have to hold that the respondent/wife was not employed from the time of presentation of the divorce petition, from January 2020 through the period when the divorce petition was presented till December 2024. The marriage having taken place in the year 2018, the husband is duty bound to maintain her from that date till a decree of divorce is granted by the Court. 16. The marriage having taken place in the year 2018, the husband is duty bound to maintain her from that date till a decree of divorce is granted by the Court. 16. Both the petitioner and the respondent are highly educated in the field of their expertise. The husband, as is clear from his affidavit of assets and liabilities, he is an Operation Manager holding a degree in Bachelor of Computer Applications. Similarly, the wife is an Engineering Graduate, B.Tech in Information Technology and a Management Masters-MBA. 17. When parties hold these highly educational standards, obviously, they cannot be expected to lead a life with only the bare necessities. A wife of an Operation Manager has certain status in the society. It is the duty of the husband to maintain her in the same status as she was, when she resided with him. I am sure if the wife had not been employed during the course of the matrimony or even if she had been employed, her husband who would have expended not less than Rs.20,000/- on her towards her expenses. Fortunately for the husband at this stage, from December, 2024 onwards, as stated by the Party-in-Person, she has secured an employment. 18. Therefore, while upholding the order, holding the liability of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife, taking into consideration the subsequent events, I am inclined to modify the impugned order. I also take note of the fact that in terms of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, it is the duty of the husband to provide shelter to the wife and her basic necessities. As per Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, a Court, be it a Family Court, Civil Court or Criminal Court, while dealing with an application before it, is entitled to take into consideration, the protective legislation that has been enacted, the Domestic Violence Act, while fixing maintenance. It is not as if Section 24 is a standalone provision but by virtue of Section 26 , provisions from Sections 18 to 21 of the Domestic Violence Act, would also have to be taken note by the Court. If the respondent was not living with her parents, she would have had to rent an accommodation. For which, the husband would have to shell out money. If the respondent was not living with her parents, she would have had to rent an accommodation. For which, the husband would have to shell out money. Therefore, despite the vehement pleas of Mr.Arun Anbumani that the amount of Rs.20,000/- is excessive, I am not inclined to consider the same. 19. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Family Court is upheld. The husband will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- from April, 2024 to November, 2024. As the respondent has secured an employment from December, 2024, the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs.12,500/- per month. This liability will continue till the disposal of the FCOP No.219 of 2023. 20. In case, the husband is able to provide details that the wife was employed between January, 2020 and April, 2020; December, 2021 and July, 2022 and July 2024 to September, 2024, the Court will adjust the amount paid by the husband during the period of proceedings as against the period as aforesaid. The wife too, in case she loses her current employment, she will be entitled to file an application seeking enhancement. The liberty granted to the husband in terms of paragraph – 9 of the impugned order continues in his favour. 21. Time for payment of arrears granted by the learned trial Judge is extended by further period of two months from today. The amount of litigation expenses fixed at Rs.15,000/-, in my view, is not excessive. Therefore, it has not been interfered with. 22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.