JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Vide this common order, the afore-said two revision petitions arising out of the common impugned order are being disposed off. For the sake of brevity, recitals/facts are being taken from CRR(F)-215 -2024.

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mansa (hereinafter to be referred as 'impugned order') praying for modification/setting-aside of the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. Vide the impugned order; the petitioners (wife and minor son) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.12,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.10,000/-per month to petitioner No.2 (minor son) from the date of the application. The petitioners (wife and minor son) had filed a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Family Court, stating that they are the wife and minor son, respectively, of the respondent (husband) and are unable to maintain themselves and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to them.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has iterated that the Family Court has overlooked the fact that the petitioner-wife has no substantial source of income as she is a household lady and hence entitled for reasonable maintenance. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioners are unable to maintain a minimal standard of living without just and sufficient interim maintenance amount. It has been argued by the learned senior counsel that the Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent-husband is a practicing Advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court and is earning a substantial income. Additionally, the respondent-husband owns 30 killas of land, a flat in Zirakpur, and a house in Sunam. In contrast, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner-wife is a homemaker with no independent source of income. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner No.2-minor son resides with petitioner No.1-wife and both are entirely dependent on the parents of petitioner-wife. The father of the petitioner-wife is an old aged person, a diabetic patient and also suffering from various health issues. It has been further urged that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the school fee for petitioner No.2-minor son alone amounts to Rs.29,600/- excluding other necessary expenses. Thus, the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioners is insufficient and makes it exceedingly difficult for petitioner No.1-wife to meet the overall expenses of petitioner No.2-minor son. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the school fee of petitioner No.2 is currently being borne by the father of petitioner No.1. Furthermore the awarded interim maintenance does not take into account other essential costs, such as transportation, healthcare and daily living expenses, which are indispensable for the well-being and upbringing of the minor child i.e. petitioner No.2. The meagre amount of interim maintenance granted creates a financial strain on the petitioner No.1-wife, making it impractical to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the minor childand hence the quantum of interim maintenance awarded vide impugned order is inadequate. Learned counsel has further submitted that the recurring costs have increased significantly due to inflation and increasing living costs, making it impossible for the petitioners to manage on a meagre amount of interim maintenance granted by the learned Family Court. It has been further argued that while passing the impugned order, the Family Court ought to have considered the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. with a very pedantic approach which are meant for the benefit of the destitute wife and minor child. Hence, it has been prayed that the Family Court has adopted a wholly unpragmatic approach which has caused substantial injustice to th