Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Rosemary Raju, Mr. Pushkar Taimni.
For the Respondents: Mr. Parvej Moyal.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court reaffirmed that the obligation of a husband to provide maintenance is of a higher standard than that of a wife, emphasizing the husband's duty to maintain the wife's standard of living as enjoyed during the marriage (!) (!) .

2. The court clarified that the scope of review of the judgment enhancing maintenance exists within its jurisdiction, especially under the relaxed application of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for correction of errors or modifications due to changed circumstances (!) (!) .

3. The court found that the income of the wife, considered to be approximately Rs.85,000 per month, was properly evaluated and taken into account when determining the maintenance amount, and that there was no concealment of her income (!) (!) .

4. The court held that the applicant-husband's claim of incorrect income calculation and concealment by the wife was not substantiated, and that the maintenance awarded was fair and justified based on the evidence and the standard of living during the marriage (!) (!) .

5. The court observed that the husband's income, even after statutory deductions, was sufficient to meet his maintenance obligations, and that deductions claimed due to leaves taken could not be relied upon to reduce the maintenance amount permanently (!) (!) .

6. The court noted that the husband's allegations of parental alienation and violations of court orders related to visitation rights were not within the scope of this review and did not impact the maintenance determination (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasized that the purpose of maintenance is to ensure the wife maintains her pre-marriage standard of living, and this principle guides the calculation and assessment of maintenance obligations (!) (!) .

8. The court dismissed the application for review, concluding that the judgment of the previous order was fair, justified, and within the court's jurisdiction, and that the application lacked merit (!) (!) .

9. The court also pointed out that the applicant-husband's income and the wife's earning capacity were adequately considered, and that the maintenance amounts awarded were appropriate given the circumstances (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the court upheld the maintenance order, reaffirmed the legal principles governing maintenance and review, and dismissed the miscellaneous application for review as without merit (!) (!) .