2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the petitioner-husband was serving as an Electrician in HRTC at the time when the impugned order was passed and his salary was 22,000/- per month. In the light of the₹4,000/- per month to the wife fact that the petitioner was earning 22,000/- per month from his₹4,000/- per month to the wife employer i.e. HRTC, maintenance to the tune of 4,000/- to the₹4,000/- per month to the wife wife, cannot be said to be maintenance granted on the higher side. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was looking after his school going son and also his aged parents, but in terms of the impugned order, the parents of the petitioner were having their own property and thus, they were not dependent upon the petitioner per se for their upkeep. Besides this, even if the petitioner-husband was looking after his son, in the light of the fact that he was earning wages of 22,000/- per month,₹4,000/- per month to the wife maintenance to the tune of 4,000/- to the present respondent, who₹4,000/- per month to the wife is not having any other source of income, cannot be said to be an amount which is on the higher side. The husband is both morally and socially duty-bound to look after his wife and the order of the learned Court below, in this backdrop, cannot be said to be a perverse order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
