JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the d 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, (hereinafter to be referred as 'impugned order') praying for ion of the said order and 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 the rate of Rs.15,000/ - per month (i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs. 5000/- per month to petitioner No.2 (minor daughter)) from the date of the filing of the application to be paid by respondent No.1-husband litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners (herein) had filed a petitioner, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Family Court, stating that they are the wife and minor daughter, respectively, of the respondent (herein) and are unable to maintain themselves and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to them. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of the interim maintenance application before the Family Court, the petitioner-wife (herein) has admitted the fact that the respondent No.2 (minor son herein) has been living under the care and custody of the respondent No.1-father and hence no interim maintenance was awarded to him.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 the learned counsel, the financial capacity of the respondent-husband, who is a police officer serving as a Sub-Inspector in the Punjab Police, posted at the 9th Battalion, Mall Mandi, Amritsar, is sound as he is currently drawing a gross salary of approximately Rs.97,187/- per month. It has been further iterated that despite the admission by the respondent-husband in his Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities that he was having a gross income of Rs.76,970/- per month at that time, the learned Family Court has granted a paltry sum of interim maintenance to the petitioners. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.1-wife, is currently dependent on her parents for support. According to the learned counsel, although, the petitioner No.1-wife previously had an ad-hoc job with a meagre salary of only Rs.9,000/- per month but now she has been removed from that job. It has been further iterated that petitioner No.2-minor daughter is school going, studying at a school in Amritsar and her expenses, including school fees, tuition fees and other related costs, are quite substantial. However, on account of paltry sum awarded by the Family Court, the petitioner No.1-wife is struggling to meet the educational expenses of petitioner No.2-minor daughter. It has been further submitted that the Family Court has overlooked the fact that the petitioners also bear additional expenses necessary for their livelihood, alongside the financial responsibility of caring of minor daughter. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has ignored to consider the fact that the wife and the minor daughter are entitled to maintain the same standard of living as the husband. Therefore, while deciding on the application for maintenance, the Family Court ought to consider both the status and earning capacity of the husband when determining the appropriate amount of maintenance to be granted. 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 that 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 counse