Pratibha Rani, J.

1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the order dated August 26, 2013 whereby he has been directed to pay Rs.23,000/- per month towards maintenance of the child of the parties and also Rs.1,08,000/- as 1/3rd share in the admission charges of Rs.3,24,000/- of their child in regular school.

2. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on April 22, 1999. They were blessed with a son on March 07, 2008. The parties are living separately since February, 2010. The appellant/husband and respondent/wife jointly owned two flats, one in Ridgewood Estate, DLF Phase IV, Gurgaon Haryana) where appellant/husband is residing and one in Iris Row, Vatika City Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) where respondent/wife along with their son is residing. The appellant/husband filed HMA Petition No.471/2014 seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek maintenance of their only son who was aged about 6 years at the time of passing the impugned order. In the application, the respondent/wife prayed for direction to the appellant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as his half share for getting the child admitted in a good school and thereafter to pay Rs.35,000/- per month for his maintenance as well Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. We may simply note here that for purpose of seeking maintenance of the minor child, the provision applicable is under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and not under Section 24 of the Act as mentioned by the parties and learned Principal Judge, Family Court.

4. Vide impugned order in para 4 & 5 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has noted the income of the parties and divided the share of the parents as under:

‘4. Both the parties have filed their detailed affidavits along with documents. The petitioner in her affidavit has shown her income as Rs.2,63,429/- per month net of TDS as of 31.03.2013. There are other miscellaneous incomes also like interest and dividend etc. On the other hand, the respondent has shown his income as Rs.1,23,750/- net of TDA. He has not shown any other income. Both the parties have also mentioned regarding investments, instalment of loans, other assets and liabilities in their respective affidavits. After going through affidavits of both the parties, the following can be safely assumed:-

(i) Both the parties belong to upper middle class and are enjoying luxurious living style.

(ii) The income of the petitioner/applicant is more than double of the income of the respondent.

5. So in my view the expenses of the child are to be borne in the ratio of 2:1 by the petitioner and the respondent respectively.’

5. After noting as above, he directed the appellant/husband to pay Rs.1,08,000/- towards his share for admission of the child in regular school and then estimating the monthly expenses of the minor child to be Rs.70,000/- per month, directed the appellant/husband to pay Rs.23,000/- per month in the ratio of 2:1 i.e. two parts of the expenses to be borne by mother and one part to be borne by father in view of their respective incomes.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband has submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has wrongly assessed the monthly disposable income of the appellant/husband to be Rs.1,23,750/- whereas after deduction of compulsory income tax which comes out to Rs.1,10,003/-. He has further submitted that in view of his medical condition, it is obligatory to him to employ a driver and pay his salary as well maintenance of car and cost of treatment. Conversely the monthly disposable income of the respondent/wife is Rs.3,55,473/ per month. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded on wrong assumption while calculating monthly disposable income of his wife as Rs.2,63,429/-. It has been further submitted that he had been voluntarily offering to contribute Rs.10,000/- per month for the child expenses which has been declin