JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

Vide this common order, the afore-said two revision petitions t of the common impugned order are being disposed off. For the sake of brevity, recitals/facts are being taken from CRR(F)-331-2024.

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, jalandhar (hereinafter to be referred as 'impugned order') praying for setting- aside/modification of the quantum of interim maintenance awarded id order. Vide the impugned order; the respondents (parents of the petitioner) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.3500/- per month each to the respondents) from the date of the application along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The respondents had filed a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Family Court, stating that they are the mother and father, respectively, of the petitioner and are unable to maintain themselves and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to them.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-son has argued that while granting the interim maintenance, the learned Family Court failed to consider that the petitioner is employed at the Institute for Auto Parts & Hand Tools Technology in Ludhiana, earning a monthly salary of Rs.26,000/-. Additionally, the petitioner is living in a rented accommodation, for which he is paying a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. According to learned counsel, the petitioner incurs monthly expenses of Rs.5000-6000/- on commuting between Ludhiana and Jalandhar and is responsible for supporting his minor child and wife, who resides in Jalandhar. It has been further argued that the Family Court has failed to acknowledge that the respondent No.2-father, operates a sawmill and earns a substantial income from it. Additionally, he manufactures wooden boxes and supplies them, providing him with sufficient income to support both himself and respondent No.1-mother. According to learned counsel, the Family Court has failed to recognize that the respondents own immovable properties, including a residential house where both the respondents are currently living. Furthermore, they possess two more plots located in Jalandhar. It has been further argued that Family Court has completely overlooked the fact that the younger brother of the petitioner, Yogesh, also resides with the respondents, who is unmarried, and has sufficient income and hence it is evident that the Family Court has granted the quantum of interim maintenance on the higher side and beyond the financial capacity of the petitioner. 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 wife and minor daughter before fastening with the liability to pay the interim maintenance. Hence, it has been prayed that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded vide impugned order be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Family Court though has determined the quantum of maintenance based on the facts and circumstances of the case but the same deserves to be enhanced by taking into consideration the earning capacity as well as financial status of the petitioner, who is earning handsomely. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has incorrectly placed significant reliance on the two houses in the name of respondent No.2, claiming that the respondent No.1 is earning rental income from these properties. However, no evidence has been provided by the petitioner to substantiate that respondents are earning any rental income from these houses. Furthermore, the Family Court has failed to recognize that the interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- granted to each of the respondents is grossly inadequate and insufficient to support the elderly parents, especially given the current skyrocketin