The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a wife to maintenance equal to the status and stature of her husband, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife, and the distinction between capability of earning and actual earnings in determining the maintenance amount.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter `Cr.P.C.') seeking enhancement of maintenance by modification of impugned order dated 27.08.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter `Family Court') in M.No. 72/2016 titled as `Ritu Manoj Prithiani vs. Manoj Dharamdas Prithiani' wherein the application of petitioner for interim maintenance had been disposed of.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing of present petition, are that on 09.07.2011, the petitioner and respondent had got married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, differences between the parties had arisen and the petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of interim maintenance. By virtue of order dated 27.08.2018, learned Principal Judge had awarded interim maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month to the present petitioner. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

"8. It is settled proposition of law that wife is entitled to the maintenance equal to the status and stature of her husband and it is also die legal and moral duty of her husband to maintain her according to his means and capacity. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, objections raised in the reply, details and status of the parties mentioned in their detailed income affidavits, arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent is earning the amount as discussed above he has the liability of his old and aged mother suffering from Polio and further the other expenses mentioned in the income affidavit are to be deducted from the salary of the respondent, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted interim maintenance of 18,000/- pm. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted interim maintenance of Rs.18000/- pm by the respondent from the date of filing of the present application till the disposal of the present petition u/s 125 CrPC. It is made clear by this order that the amount awarded herein shall be adjusted against the amount already awarded in this case as ad interim maintenance, any other proceedings/case as maintenance/interim maintenance to the petitioner. The monthly payment shall be made to the petitioner by the respondent on or before 7th day of each English Calender month. The arrears shall be paid within the period of six months from today in six equal installments. Accordingly, the aforesaid application is disposed off in the above discussed terms".

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed for enhancement of the interim maintenance on the ground that learned Family Court had failed to appreciate that the respondent was earning Rs.97,399/- per month as per his salary slip filed before the Court and his carry home salary was Rs.82,330/- per month after deductions.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that learned Judge, Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent also has rental income from his residential house which is valued at about Rs.70 lakhs. It is stated that the Court has erroneously assumed that respondent has liability of his old mother, although there is no document to support the said claim. It is also stated that the mother of respondent has separate rental income from the property she owns in her name and is able to maintain herself. It is also stated that petitioner is not working and is suffering from several ailments and requires constant medical treatment. It is further the case of petitioner that she is living in a one room rented accommodation with her old father whereas the respondent is living in a lavish locality of Mumbai. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that she is entitled to same status and facilities as enjoyed by the respondent.

5. It is also