1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner - husband has challenged the order dated 01.08.2024 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi (hereafter 'Family Court') vide which the learned Family Court has awarded sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.22,500/- for each respondent, i.e. respondent no. 1 / wife and respondent no. 2 / the minor child) per month to the respondents from the date of filing of the petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter 'CrPC') till its disposal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 11.02.2015, and a female child was born out of their wedlock on 19.08.2017, who is currently in the custody of respondent No.1. Due to the alleged acts of cruelty committed by the petitioner and his family members, the respondent No. 1 had left the matrimonial home and subsequently filed the petition under S.125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition against the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 granting interim maintenance, passed by the learned Family Court. The petitioner claims that he was always willing to reside with the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he is presently residing in rented accommodation and that his aged parents are financially dependent on him. It is also his case that he has taken loans amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- from various banks for the construction of a house at his native place. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 1 did not file an affidavit of income and assets before the learned Trial Court, and despite this, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.03.2024 had earlier erroneously directed him to pay ad - interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.7,500/- each for the wife and child).

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is a non - speaking order, as it merely records the submissions made by the parties, and does not assign any reasons for the conclusions drawn. It is argued that the learned Family Court failed to consider the financial liabilities of the petitioner, including the maintenance and medical expenses of his aged parents, who are entirely dependent upon him. The petitioner is also burdened with the repayment of a home loan, for which he is paying an EMI of Rs.66,216/- per month, in addition to the monthly rent of his residence. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been regularly paying the school fees of the minor child amounting to Rs.5,500/- per month even prior to the filing of the present proceedings and remains willing to bear all educational expenses of the child. It is contended that if the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.45,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents, he will be financially incapable of meeting his loan obligations, particularly the EMI payable to the bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention to the income affidavit filed by respondent No.1 (wife), stating that it is inconsistent and unreliable. It is submitted that the respondent has claimed monthly expenses to the tune of Rs.70,000/-, including Rs.20,000/- allegedly spent on the minor child, despite the fact that the petitioner is already paying the school fee. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondents argues that the present petition is devoid of merit and warrants dismissal, as the impugned order granting maintenance to the respondents is based on settled legal principles and admitted facts. It is submitted that the petitioner - husband is gainfully employed as a Software Engineer with TLG India, earning Rs.1,05,000/- per month, as admitted in h