JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as 'impugned order') praying for modification 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.8,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife from the date of petition till 15.06.2020 and Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-minor daughter from the date of petition till final decision 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 daughter, 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 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 Patwari, is sound. It has been further iterated that the respondent has neither submitted his income tax returns for three years nor his bank statements and salary slip along with his affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. It has been further iterated that petitioner No.2-minor daughter is a school going girl 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. According to the learned counsel, even if the wife is earning, the husband remains legally and morally obligated to support the wife. 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 the 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 iterated 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.1 has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor daughter as she is working as an agent in Post Office and earning handsomely. Moreover, it has been further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a qualified lady and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by imparting tuitions. Hence, dismissal of t