JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Present revision petition has been preferred against the order 12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani Camp Court at Loharu (hereinafter to be referred as the 'concerned Family raying for setting-aside of the said order. Vide the impugned order; the respondents (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate 000/- per month (i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife 000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor son) to be paid by the (herein) from the date of application till final disposal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned court, while determining the quantum of interim maintenance, has presumption while assessing the income of the petitioner. Learned has further argued that considering the modest income of the , he is unable to pay the excessive amount of maintenance granted family Court. Learned counsel has further argued that the Family overlooked the fact that the respondent-wife, is doing the work of embroidery, sewing and stitching and earning handsomely. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent-wife has refused to live with the petitioner without any justifiable cause which further demonstrates that the respondent-wife has no justifiable grounds for seeking maintenance. According to learned counsel, the Family Court ought to have dismissed the petition at the very first instance, as the respondent-wife (herein) intentionally misrepresented the material facts before the Family Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent, in her petition before the Family Court, has wrongly claimed herself to be a housewife with no source of income. Learned counsel has further argued that the Family Court ought to have considered that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family, having responsibility to look after his old parents before fastening with the liability to pay the interim maintenance. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned order is patently illegal, perverse and suffers from material illegalities and infirmities and the same is liable to be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has iterated that the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application seeking interim maintenance as the respondent-wife has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor son. Furthermore, the Family Court has determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner; consideration of the expenditure incurred for the maintenance and education of the minor son as also taken due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the petitioner is working in a private company and as such earning handsomely. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available 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:-

1. 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 Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days' from the date of service of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find that application remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by parties, enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of applications for maintenance at the interim stage for several years defeats the v