Paresh Upadhyay, J.

Challenge in this petition is made by the wife and minor daughter to the order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara dated 12.05.2017 below application Exh.15 in H.M.P. No. 534 of 2012. The said application was filed by these petitioners, seeking interim maintenance from the respondent husband / father. By the impugned order, the Family Court has partly allowed the said application and ordered the respondent - father to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the minor daughter with effect from the date of application. The said application is however rejected qua the wife. This is challenged by both - the wife and the daughter before this Court in this petition, principally on two counts. Firstly, that the maintenance ought to have been granted to the wife and secondly that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- qua the daughter should have been more.

2. The principal proceeding (being H.M.P. No.534 of 2012) was instituted by the husband (through his father as the power of attorney holder), seeking divorce from his wife. The merits of the said proceedings are not gone into by this Court, since the point for consideration before this Court in this petition is only the sustainability of the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application for maintenance qua the wife, and insufficiency of the amount of maintenance qua the minor daughter.

3. Both the parties have appeared before this Court inperson. They are heard at length by this Court. Submissions are made qua merits of the matter as well by both the parties, however as already noted above, since the point for consideration before this Court in this petition is only the sustainability of the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application for maintenance qua the wife, and insufficiency of the amount of maintenance qua the minor daughter, this Court has considered only those arguments, which are relevant for the point at issue.

4. The petitioner (wife) has submitted that the Court below fell in error on two counts. Firstly, the maintenance ought to have been granted to her as well, and secondly, the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month qua the daughter should have been more. It is submitted that, the petitioner has, by her application before the Trial Court prayed that, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- be awarded to her and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- be awarded for the minor daughter. In support of her submissions, the petitioner has taken this Court extensively through the material on record, including the averments made in the application Exh.15 and the material on record before the Trial Court. She has also taken this Court through the additional material placed before this Court by her and by the respondent husband. She has relied on the following decisions to support her case.

(i) The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court, recorded on Cr.No. 6198 of 2013 (dated 12.12.2016) in the case of Amit Kumar Vs Navjot Dubey.

(ii) The decision of Delhi High Court, recorded on CRL.REV.P. 363 of 2016 & Crl.M.A. 8005 of 2016 in the case of Deepak Malhotra Vs Deepti Malhotra.

5. On the other hand, the respondent husband, who has also appeared in-person, has supported the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. He has submitted that no amount could be ordered to be paid either to his wife or to his daughter as he is a student and having no means of income. He has submitted that the direction to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his minor daughter is not challenged by him, however his submissions be treated to contest this petition. The respondent husband has also extensively taken this Court through the material on record and has submitted that no interference be made by this Court. He has relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions.

(i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994) AIR SC 853.

(ii) Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 3 RCR(Criminal) 477.

(iii) Padmaja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) AIR SC 1398