JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as the 'concerned Family Court') praying for modification of the said order and consequently enhancing the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking grant of maintenance allowance against the respondent-husband. Vide the impugned order; the petitioners (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 - minor children) to be paid by the respondent (herein) from the date of passing of the judgment i.e. 07.07.2023.

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 petitioner (herein) insofar as the income of the respondent is concerned. It has been further iterated that the respondent is serving in ITBP and is earning handsomely. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.l-wife, has no independent source of income and bears the sole responsibility of caring for her minor sons. However, on account of paltry sum awarded by the Family Court, the petitioner No.l-wife is struggling to meet the educational expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (minor sons). It has been further submitted that the Family Court has overlooked the fact that the petitioner-wife also bears the additional expenses necessary for the livelihood, alongside the financial responsibility of caring of minor sons (petitioner Nos.2 and 3). It has been further 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. It is argued that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error in granting the maintenance from the date of judgment instead of the date of filing of the maintenance petition.

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 record before it. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.l has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor sons, as she is earning handsomely by doing the work of stitching. Hence, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

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 severa