IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 09.10.2025 Arvind Jha ……Petitioner Versus Moushumee Jha ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Dagar, Advocate for the respondent.

ALOK JAIN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gurugram, in MNT-520-2022, whereby, an ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month was granted to the respondent-wife, from the date of application.

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are, that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 25.02.1992 and they have lived happily for last more than thirty years. They were blessed with two sons from the said wedlock. However, subsequently, due to certain matrimonial discord, allegations and counter allegations have been made by both the parties. The parties are not living together which has led to filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner and along with the application for grant of interim- maintenance. The Court below vide order dated 18.02.2024, has granted a sum of Rs. 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent towards grocery expenses from the date of filling of the petition which is

21.12.2022. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opened his arguments and submitted that the learned Court below has fell in error and has not considered the pleadings and the preliminary evidence available on the file in its correct perspective which has led to miscarriage of justice in passing the impugned order. It has been submitted that the respondent-wife is a well-qualified women and is a world-renowned photographer working with various prestigious organizations and is earning well. Apart from that, respondent is also earning royalty from several books authored by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed towards the admissions made by the respondent in her income and expense affidavit dated 19.05.2023, filed before the learned Court below and vehemently submitted that the petitioner was voluntarily paying the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, even before the impugned order was passed. Furthermore, the petitioner had paid ₹1 Crore to the respondent, out of the sale consideration received from selling out of residential property and out the said Rs. 1 Crore, as per her own affidavit, respondent admittedly maintaining Rs. 75 Lakhs in her bank account, which must also be yielding some good interest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the petitioner is voluntarily bearing expenses of approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs per month, which include basic necessities such as gas, electricity, internet, telephone, and other miscellaneous expenses, including the EMI of about Rs. 1.5 Lakhs towards the loan of the residential accommodation wherein the respondent-wife is currently residing. Learned counsel stoutly maintained that the petitioner has been diligently performing his duties as a husband and as a father, and shouldering the expenses of his separated wife and two-sons, who are pursuing their higher education in USA.

5. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in not appreciating the documents on record while assessing the income of the petitioner for the reason that, the petitioner had already resigned from his job in February, 2023, and started his own venture, which is presently incurring losses. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that, apart from maintaining the respondent, there are other personal and family expenses which the petitioner has to incur and which cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the interim maintenance granted to the respondent by the impugned order is on the higher side.

6. It is also argued