1. By this writ petition, the petitioner (husband) has challenged order dated 24/08/2015 passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, granting interim maintenance to the respondents (wife and child), during the pendency of application filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court has directed that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from 01/09/2013 to the respondent No. 1 wife and Rs. 5000/- per month to respondent No. 2 child from 01/09/2013 to 31/08/2015 and thereafter to pay to the child Rs. 10,000/- per month from 01/09/2015 till further orders.

2. While issuing notice in this writ petition, on 23/11/2015, this court had granted stay to the effect and operation of the said order of the Family Court, subject to the petitioner depositing interim maintenance for the respondents at Rs. 10,000/- per month. The said amount has been paid regularly by the petitioner to the respondents and there is no dispute about the same.

3. Mr. Gopal Sawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Family Court was unsustainable because it was based on conjectures and surmises. It was submitted that the petitioner had placed on record his income tax returns for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, to demonstrate that his income was meager and that he was not in a position to pay interim maintenance as directed by the Family Court. It was submitted that the respondents had tried to show that the petitioner was a well to do businessman, when in reality, the business belonged to family of the petitioner and that he himself was doing a job for his survival and that he was not being handsomely paid for the same. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was a well-qualified architect and that she was deliberately sitting at home to show as if she had no source of income. It was submitted that in these circumstances, the impugned order deserved to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, Dr. Renuka Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Family Court had correctly taken into consideration the material placed on record to come to the conclusion that the petitioner could easily afford to give the quantum of maintenance as directed in the impugned order. It was submitted that the income tax returns on which the petitioner was placing reliance pertained to the years when the dispute between the parties had already started and the returns were deliberately prepared in such a manner so as to show as if the income of the petitioner was meager. It was pointed out that the petitioner belonged to a very well-to-do business family, of which he was an active member and that situation of penury was being artificially created by the petitioner, so as to deprive the respondents of their rightful claim towards interim maintenance. It was submitted that a detail and elaborate exercise was not expected to be carried out by the Court while deciding the quantum of interim maintenance, as by its very nature it was temporary and when the Family Court in the present case had taken into account all relevant factors, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.

5. Heard counsel for the parties. Before examining as to whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justified, it would be relevant to refer to the legal position as regards the factors required to be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding grant of interim maintenance and the quantum thereof. In the case of Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that a wife cannot be deprived of interim maintenance on the ground that she was educated and that she could support herself. It was also laid down that the financial position of the parents of the wife was also immaterial. The judgment of the High Court, which was upheld b