JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Neyyattinkara, on the ground that the said Court did not analyze his salary certificate properly, while mulcting him with the obligation to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents.

2. Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, in Ext.P6 order, the learned Family Court has taken his client’s salary to be Rs.50,375/-, but without discerning that this is the gross income, without deductions of Rs.12,185/-. He argued that, after such deductions are made, the net salary his client can take home is only Rs.38,000/-; out of which, he has to pay Rs.16,500/- as interest for Bank loans, while the balance has to be used to meet the medical expenses and such other of his old parents. He contended that, therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have mulcted his client with more than Rs.4,500/- per month because, it is the only sum left after all the afore expenses.

3. Even though when we hear the learned counsel for the petitioner on the afore lines, the fact remains that the learned Family Court has, in Ext.P6, recorded unambi