The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the obligation of parents to maintain their children under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The judgment also emphasizes that a spouse capable of earning but choosing to remain idle should not be entitled to higher maintenance.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the appellant/husband seeking modification of the order dated 23.08.2016 which has been passed on an application filed by respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance for herself and her minor son who was 8 years of age at the relevant time. The Family Court upon hearing counsels for the parties had awarded a consolidated maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month for the minor son and Rs.25,000/- per month for the wife/respondent.

2. The aforesaid order was assailed by the appellant herein by filing the MAT APP. (F.C.) No. 108/2017 which was disposed of by an order dated 24.07.2017 while granting leave to the appellant/husband to withdraw the appeal and seek modification of the order dated 23.08.2016.

3. The Family Court in the application seeking modification has reduced the maintenance of the respondent/wife from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month while maintaining the maintenance awarded to the son.

4. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.03.2000 at New Delhi as per Sikh rites. Out of their wedlock a son was born on 29.08.2003. Thereafter, the parties on account of a marital discord started residing separately.

5. We may note that the petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was filed but the same was subsequently withdrawn. The minor son has been residing with the respondent/mother for the last 8 years. The modification of the order dated 23.08.2016 was sought on the ground that the respondent/wife had concealed her true income and withheld material facts from the Court. It was contended based on the photographs placed on record that the respondent/wife was gainfully employed with a Banquet Hall and she was earning a large salary which had been concealed. In response to the allegations so made, the respondent/wife had fairly agreed that she was working in the Banquet Hall which was owned by her first cousin, namely Sh. Gurmeet Singh. It was explained that on account of her being depressed, her cousin had offered and allowed her to spend time at the Banquet hall, which she started from 01.03.2017, but without any remuneration. The owner of the Banquet Hall was also called upon to place documents on record with respect to the persons employed, the Family Court took into account that the average salary of the employees was around Rs.13,600/- to Rs. 16,500/-. Based on the average salary being paid to other employees at the Banquet Hall, the Family Court had reduced the maintenance granted to the respondent/wife from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.

6. Mr. Vinod Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband has strongly urged before this Court that the respondent/wife has been gainfully employed as a teacher. She is well qualified and has a degree of B.A. and B.Ed. She is capable of working and thus she is not entitled for any maintenance from her husband. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/wife had made any attempt to secure an employment but was not able to secure it. It is also contended that the income tax returns filed by the appellant/husband have been ignored by the Family Court and his income has been assessed at Rs.12 lakhs instead of Rs.3 lakhs, which is evident from the income tax returns relied upon the appellant/husband.

7. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta reported at 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5009. The paragraphs No. 11 and 13 have been relied upon to buttress the arguments so raised by him, which are reproduced as under:

“11. In context of award of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to a well qualified spouse having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle has been deprecated in