IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 239 of 2010 Smt. Anita W/o Arvind Kumar D/o Mirkayal R/o 97, BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Appellant Versus Arvind Kumar S/o Sri Atar Singh R/o H. No. 32, Gali No. 4, Krashna Nagar, Roorkee, Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Lalit Tewari, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 15.05.2010, passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2009, whereby said court has granted maintenance at the rate of ` 800/- 2 per month to the wife (appellant) under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, during the pendency of Suit No. 37 of 2009. In addition to this, ` 2,000/- has been directed by the trial court to be paid to the wife towards litigation expenses. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3) Brief facts of the case are that appellant got married to the respondent on 30th of June 2001, in District Haridwar. Two children were born out of the wedlock who are living with the father (respondent). The respondent has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It appears that during pendency of said suit, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was moved by the wife, for maintenance and litigation expenses. The said application was contested by the respondent pleading that he has to bear expenses of the two children who are living with him. 4) Admittedly, respondent Arvind Kumar is a Junior Engineer with Public Works Department of the State. It is also not disputed that he is maintaining the two children born out of the wedlock living with him. The impugned order is an order relating to the interim maintenance. 3 5) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, economic status of the parties, and the fact that the two children are living with the respondent, the impugned order dated 15.05.2010 deserves to be modified, as the amount of ` 800/- per month is too meager. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15.05.2010, is modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay ` 1,500/- per month as maintenance to his wife from the date the trial court has awarded amount of ` 800/- per month during the pendency of Suit No. 37 of 2009. With this modification in the impugned order, this appeal stands disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 18, 2010. H. Negi 4