JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat, Haryana whereby the petition filed by the respondent No.1-wife (herein) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of maintenance was allowed as follows:

"7. Keeping in view the above discussion it is held that petitioners are entitled for maintenance to the tune of Rs.18,000/- per month, which the respondent is liable to pay from the date of filing the present application till expenses to the tune of Rs.8,000/-. Copy of this order be given to the petitioner, free of cost as envisaged under Section 128 Cr.P.C. The application stands partly allowed accordingly."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the learned Family Court has committed grave illegality while passing the impugned order and the same is totally contrary to the facts as also the ITR certificates produced by the petitioner-husband. It has been further iterated that the Family Court has erred in failing to consider the statements recorded on 10.03.2022, wherein both the parties voluntarily agreed to an amicable settlement in which it has been explicitly recorded that the petitioner-husband would transfer one house to the respondents and the property jointly owned by the petitioner and respondent No.1 would be transferred solely to the petitioner-husband. According to learned counsel, despite this clear understanding and the readiness of the petitioner to honour the agreement, the Family Court has overlooked this crucial aspect and passed the impugned order which is legally unsustainable. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is a small business owner and on account of covid-19, the business of the petitioner was adversely affected and is under the considerable financial burden. It is, thus, pleaded that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court deserves to be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Family Court has rightly determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner and hence no interference is called for in the impugned order. According to him, both the children are in the custody of respondent No.1 and she was incurring all the expenses on their upbringing. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

5. During the course of hearing, it has transpired that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Family Court without seeking, from the rival parties, the affidavit(s) of assets and liabilities in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma, 2023 INSC 981; relevant whereof reads as under:-

"8. The manner in which maintenance payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Detailed guidelines were issued. It was noticed that the terms of maintenance are decided on the basis of pleadings of parties and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It is often seen that both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income. Keeping that in view, this Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance. The judgments of various courts were referred to and response from various State Legal Services Authorities was sought. This Court even requested the National Legal Services Authority to submit a report on the suggestions received from the State Legal Services Authorities for framin