This Civil Revision Petition under S. 115 of the Civil P.C is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 1st Dec., 1980 directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses to the petitioner-wife and Rs. 450 per month as maintenance for her support with effect from 30th Sept., 1980, the date on which she made an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in proceedings for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under S. 13 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites at Delhi on 27th Jan., 1979. They lived together at Madras. The respondent is employed in I.T.C Hotels. Previously he was posted at Hotel Chola, Madras but now he is posted at Jammu in Asia Hotel. The petitioner-wife in her application under S. 24 of the Act, alleges that she has been in possession of few share certificates of the value of Rs. 2,000 and that she has no other source of income. She has claimed Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance. The trial court has held that the petitioner-wife is not in a position to support herself and that her income from the share certificates is Rs. 100 or Rs. 150 per annum and she has no other source of income. As regards the respondent-husband the trial court has concluded that his net monthly salary was Rs. 1137. The petitioner-wife feeling aggrieved has filed this revision.

3. Section 24 of the Act reads as under:

“Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”

4. For determination of the amount payable first it has to be determined whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her support and to meet the litigation expenses. If it is held that he or she has no independent income, an order may be passed providing for maintenance and litigation expenses. The maintenance and litigation expenses are not in the nature of a permanent arrangement. It is only a temporary arrangement during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act. The amount on account of maintenance and litigation expenses has to be determined after taking into consideration the source of income of the opposite party. S. 24 of the Act requires the court to give a direction for monthly allowance such sum as it considers to be reasonable. Thus the statute does not require the court to make any mathematical calculation to arrive at any definite proportion of income of the opposite party for payment on account of maintenance or litigation expenses. The gross income of the opposite party has to be kept in mind for judging the standard of living. From the gross income one has to deduct the necessary expenses. The expenses may be compulsory or optional. Similarly there are various types of deductions made from the salary of an officer. The deduction may also be compulsory or optional. Compulsory expenses and deduction are to be deducted from the gross income and out of the balance a reasonable amount should be fixed for payment of the maintenance and the litigation expenses. In other words, one has to determine the disposable income of the opposite party.

5. In Smt. Preeti Archana Sharma v. Ravind Kumar Sharma, AIR 1979 All 29 it has been observed, “S. 24 uses the word ‘support’ and does not use the words ‘standard’ or ‘status’. It is clear that the court must keep in view that one cannot live like a Lord and the other like a maid nor can one live like a princess and other like a servant. There must be some balance. It cannot be that while one lives in penury the other lives in grand style.” It has been further observed that if a party has to pay insurance premium or provident fund or income-tax, those are necessary expenses which must be ducted from the gross-income to arrive at a net income. In Kashinath Sahu v. Smt. Devi, AIR 1971 Orissa 295 it has been observed, “in determining the quantum of maintenance, the courts have to take into consideration several factors like the status of the family, the earnings and the commitments of the husband and what is required by the wife to maintain herself”. It has been further observed by Orissa High Court, “the court should not give maintenance to the wife which would keep her in luxury and would make judicial separation profitable and also impede any future changes of reconciliation”. In Bhagwan v. Smt. Kamla Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83 which was a matter regarding maintenance of the wife under S. 488 of the Cri. P.C, the Supreme Court observed that the court has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. In Usha v. Sudhir Kumar, (1974) 76 Pun LR 195 it has been observed, “disposable income is arrived at by deducting from the gross income only such items of expenses over which the respondent has no control of any kind such as direct taxes like income-tax etc.” It hay been further observed that “in working out the disposable income, no deduction should be made from the gross income in respect of running the household of the respondent, paying house rent or electricity or water charges, paying the salaries of his domestic servants, payment by him of life insurance premium or for voluntary savings such as provident fund or purchase of National Savings Certificates etc.” Thus Allahabad has taken a view that Provident Fund and life insurance premium should be deducted to determine the disposable income while Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the view that life insurance premium or the provident fund should not be taken into consideration while calculating the disposable income. For determination of the amount of maintenance it should be determined what is the carry home salary of the person concerned so that a reasonable amount for payment may be determined. At the time of determining the carry home salary the amounts of deduction or expenses incurred by the opposite spouse which are optional may also be taken into consideration. Further it must also be seen whether the optional expenses or deductions were made as a result of the litigation between the parties with a view to deprive the applicant under S. 24 of the Act. The bona fides of the parties are taken into consideration. There cannot be any hard and fast rule that the Provident Fund and life insurance premium should not be taken into consideration while determining the disposable income. The contribution to Provident Fund may be optional or compulsory. Similarly if the amount of life insurance premium was being paid prior to the disputes between the parties, payment of premium ‘should be taken into consideration and deducted from the gross income to determine the disposable income unless some mala fides are alleged.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the report and accounts for the year ending 31st March, 19811 of I.T.C Ltd. the gross remuneration paid or payable to the respondent-husband was Rs. 39,774.00. This fact is not denied by the respondent but he submits that his carry home salary is only Rs. 1137 per month and that a sum of Rs. 400 per month is deducted by his employer on account of boarding charges. The parties had filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions and both were cross-examined. It is stated that at Madras the respondent-husband was getting Rs. 600 per month as house rent allowance and that he had not been getting any such allowance at Jammu as accommodation by his employer had been provided in the hotel itself on payment of Rs. 200 per month. The respondent in his affidavit has given the break up of Rs. 39,774 mentioned in the I.T.C Annual Report as under :—

(a) Consolidated salary Rs. 1600/- per month Personal allowance Rs. 65/- per month Rent allowance Rs. 400/- per month City allowance Rs. 150/- per month Total Rs. 2215/- (b) Retirement benefit at 34% of the consolidated salary (c) Medical allowance Rs. 175/- per month (d) Leave Travel allowance Rs. 175/- per month (e) Bonus Rs. 135/- per month

This break up appears to be correct but the question is what amount the respondent has been carrying home in fact every month. His case is that Rs. 318 is being deducted at source on account of income-tax and Rs. 160 as Provident Fund. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Provident Fund contribution is compulsory under S. 6 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952. Thus the deductions on account of income-tax and provident fund are compulsory. The respondent also says that he has been paying life insurance premium at Rs. 720 per annum. This amount is also not optional. If payment of premium is not made policy may lapse. It is thus a necessary expenses. The amount of Rs. 400 per month deducted on account of boarding charges can be included towards disposable income. According to the pay slip and salary certificate the net payable monthly salary is Rs. 1137. Adding the sum of Rs. 400 on account of boarding charges the monthly disposable income would be Rs. 1537 only. The respondent further states that he pays Rs. 350 per month as maintenance to his parents. The trial court has not accepted his version. Learned counsel for the respondent however submits that the respondent is under an obligation to maintain his parents under S. 125 of the Cr. P.C Whether any maintenance is paid or not to the parents is immaterial, but he is under an obligation to maintain them if they are unable to maintain themselves. Considering the facts of this case the trial court has rightly determined the monthly maintenance of Rs. 450 out of the disposable income of Rs. 1,537. There is no ground to increase the monthly maintenance.

7. As regards litigation expenses, a sum of Rs. 1,000 was awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife has to examine witnesses from Madras as prior to transfer both were living there and that to disprove various allegations she is required to produce witnesses from Madras. It is true that witnesses from Madras may be necessary but out of the disposable income Rs.. 1,537 a sum of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses is reasonable. The respondent with the said amount of disposable income cannot be directed to pay more than Rs. 1,000. The respondent states that he does not physically get any portion of 34% of the consolidated salary on account of retirement benefit, Rs. 175 on account of monthly medical allowance, any amount of leave travelling allowance or the bonus. His case is that the yearly gross remuneration may be Rs. 39,774 incurred by his employers on him as shown in the Annual Report for the year ending 31st March, 1980 but he is getting Rs. 1137 only as his net monthly salary besides accomodation for residence and boarding in the hotel.

8. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order under S. 115 of the Civil P.C The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.