IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 24 of HMA for the determination of interim maintenance, considering the parties' financial circumstances and any change in circumstances affecting the maintenance amount.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order.

2. MAT.APP. (F.C.) 87/2019, has been filed by Mr Sanjay Kumar Baranwal (`Husband') seeking setting aside/modification of the impugned order dated 29th January, 2019, passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi (`Family Court') whereby the application filed by the Mrs Bhavna Kumari (`Wife') under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (`HMA') was disposed of, directing the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of Rs.66,000/-per month (Rs.22,000/-each to the Wife and the two daughters) as pendente lite maintenance, until the disposal of the divorce petition filed by the Husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

3. MAT.APP. (F.C.) 159/2019, has been filed by the Wife seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance from Rs.66,000/-per month to a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-per month.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are set out hereinafter. The parties got married on 8th March 2000, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born from the said wedlock on 13th March 2001 and 15th April 2006 respectively. Disputes arose between the parties in March 2018, which resulted in multiple rounds of litigation.

5. The present petition arises from a petition filed by the Husband seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, before the Family Court. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the Wife moved an application under Section 24 of HMA, seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/-per month.

6. By way of the impugned order, the Family Court assessed the monthly disposable income of the Husband in the range of Rs.Rs.1,10,000/-per month and directed the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of Rs.66,000/-per month as interim maintenance, Rs.22,000/-each, to the Wife and the two daughters. The operative portion of the order passed by the Family Court has been set out below:

"18 The petitioner has no other liability except to maintain himself as well as his wife and both the children. Thus, entire disposable income of the petitioner of Rs.1,10,000 is required to be divided into 5 equal shares. Out of which one share is required to be given to respondent/wife Bhavna Kumari, one share to his daughter Ms. Sanhita Kumari, one share to his son Master (SIC) Shreya Sargam, one share to the petitioner and one additional share to the petitioner for his day to day needs and expenses. Thus, respondent is entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.66,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance from the petitioner.

19 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application filed by the respondent is allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.66,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of application till the disposal of petition.

The petitioner shall make the payment of arrear of maintenance within a period of three months from today. Any amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent as maintenance under the order of any court or otherwise shall be adjusted against the arrears. The application is accordingly disposed of."

7. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Family Court, both parties have approached this Court by way of the present appeals.

8. In the appeal filed by the Husband, the predecessor bench passed a detailed order dated 9th May, 2019, directing the Husband to pay a sum of Rs.66,000/- per month to the Wife including the school fees of the children and also directed him to clear arrears of maintenance awarded by the Family Court within 6 weeks. Further, the parties were referred to mediation. However, the mediation was not successful.

9. Subsequently, the Husband filed an application, C.M. No. APPL.3144/2023, seeking modification of the impugned order based on change in circumstances.

10. Broadly, the Husband seeks modification of the impugned order on the following grounds:

I. The elder daughter has attained majority in the year 2019. She has start