The court established that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children is paramount, and only statutory deductions from income are permissible in determining maintenance amounts.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala (hereinafter to be referred as ‘impugned order’) praying for modification of the said order for enhancing the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. Vide the impugned order; the petitioners (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No. 1-wife and Rs.2500/-per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughters) from the date of the filing of the petition alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- The petitioners (herein) had filed a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973 before the Family Court, stating that they are the wife and minor daughters, respectively, of the respondent (herein) and are unable to maintain themselves and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to them.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the learned Family Court has erred in determining the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to the petitioners (herein) insofar as the income of the respondent is concerned. According to the learned counsel, the respondent- husband has concealed his true financial standing. It has been further argued that the Family Court ought to have considered the disparity between the actual income of the respondent and the paltry sum awarded, which is grossly inadequate to meet even the basic necessities of life. Learned counsel has submitted that taking into consideration ever-increasing cost of living, including essential commodities, education, medical expenses and other household needs, the enhancement of the maintenance amount is urgently warranted. It has been further submitted that the financial obligations of the respondent-husband cannot overshadow his primary duty of providing maintenance to the petitioners. Furthermore, the learned Family Court has completely overlooked the growing financial responsibilities of two minor daughters, both of whom require care, education and proper upbringing. Learned counsel has further submitted the recurring costs have escalated significantly due to inflation and increasing living costs, making it impossible for the petitioners to manage on a meagre sum of Rs.8,000/-. Learned counsel has argued that the maintenance amount awarded is insufficient to sustain a decent and respectable living standard for the petitioners and hence the quantum of interim maintenance be modified to at least 15,000/- per month.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the Family Court, while granting the interim maintenance to the petitioners, has completely ignored from consideration the materials placed on record before it. It has been further argued that the respondent-husband has expressed his willingness to reconcile with the petitioners by filing a petition under Section 9 of the HMA. According to him, the respondent has the responsibility of looking after his ailing mother, who is suffering from diabetes and hypertension and whom he is obliged to maintain, before fastening with the liability to pay the interim maintenance. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner No. 1-wife, having done M.A. in history, is capable of earning her livelihood and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month by giving coaching classes and hence has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor daughters. Hence, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324; relevant whereof reads as under:

“II Payment of interim Maintenance

(i) The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third proviso to