The court established that only statutory deductions from income are permissible when determining maintenance obligations, emphasizing the husband's duty to support dependents regardless of personal financial decisions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Family Law - Interim maintenance - Petitioners awarded interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month; petitioners claimed insufficient for their needs, especially due to medical expenses for minor child - Respondent's financial disclosure questioned, indicating potential concealment of income - Court emphasized that deductions from income for maintenance must only include statutory obligations, not voluntary expenses - Court modified maintenance for minor children but dismissed claim for wife. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Maintenance - The obligation to maintain dependents is paramount and cannot be diminished by voluntary financial decisions of the husband, such as loans or excessive expenses. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a wife and her two minor children, sought enhancement of interim maintenance from the Family Court, claiming the awarded amount was insufficient due to the husband's concealed income and the child's medical needs.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent-husband's claimed expenses were excessive and modified the maintenance for the minor children while dismissing the claim for the wife.

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the interim maintenance awarded and the respondent's financial disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only statutory deductions should be considered in determining maintenance obligations, emphasizing the husband's duty to provide for his dependents despite personal financial choices.

Result: Petition partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram (hereinafter to be referred as ‘impugned order’) praying for modification of the said order consequently enhancing the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. Vide the impugned order; the petitioners (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at rate of Rs.30,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.20,000/-per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (minor children) from the date of the filing of the petition. 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 children, 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 petitioner has iterated 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 learned counsel, the respondent husband has concealed his true financial standing. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.1-wife alongwith two minor children, has no independent source of income and bears the sole responsibility of caring for the two minor children. It has been further reiterated that minor son i.e. petitioner No. 3 is suffering from Astigmatism-Simple Myopic Astigmatism in eye, requiring constant medical care attention. The expenses for the medical treatment of petitioner No.3 (minor son), alongwith other necessities, far exceed the amount of maintenance that has been granted by the Family Court. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband is employed in a multinational company, earning a monthly income of Rs.1.00 lacs. However, as per the affidavit filed by the respondent- husband before the Family Court, under the heading of income and expenditure, he has claimed his monthly expenses of Rs.81,000/- while simultaneously declaring a monthly income of Rs.75,000/- under the head of income of the respondent-husband. This inconsistency clearly indicates that the respondent-husband declared expenses surpass his reported income, which suggests that the respondent has manipulated his financial disclosure in the affidavit with an intent to minimize the maintenance amount. Learned counsel has submitted that taking into consideration the ever-increasing cost of living, including essential commodities, education, medical expenses and other household needs, the enhancement of the maintenance amount is urgently warranted. 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 an awarded amount of interim maintenance. 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 and enhanced suitably.

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 the materials placed on recorded before it. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.1 has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor children. Hence, dismissal for 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:-

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