Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The application concerns interim maintenance pending divorce, with the Respondent Wife (RW) seeking RM60,000 for herself and RM21,000 for the children, while the Petitioner Husband (PH) claims he can only afford RM2,000 for RW and RM1,500 for each child (!) .

2. The court emphasized that interim maintenance payments must be within the means of the paying spouse, taking into account both parties' needs and obligations under the law (!) .

3. The court reviewed the financial disclosures and evidence presented by both parties, noting that PH's income was supported by tax returns and bank statements, whereas RW's expenses were listed without sufficient supporting evidence (!) (!) .

4. The court acknowledged that RW, being a qualified professional, had the capacity to seek employment and support herself, and that her claimed expenses were not adequately substantiated (!) (!) .

5. The court considered the financial circumstances of both parties, including PH’s income and the fact that he has been the primary breadwinner, supporting the view that the proposed maintenance amount by RW was excessive and unrealistic (!) (!) .

6. The law requires that maintenance be based primarily on the means and needs of each party, and that the court considers the responsibility each party bears for the marriage breakdown (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court found that the amount claimed by RW was disproportionate to PH’s income and financial capacity, and that the expenses claimed by RW lacked sufficient evidence to justify the high maintenance amount (!) (!) (!) .

8. The court highlighted that interim maintenance orders are meant as temporary measures and will be further addressed during the final hearing of the divorce proceedings (!) .

9. The court allowed part of RW’s application, awarding RM2,000 for her and RM1,500 for each child, to commence immediately, with other prayers reserved for trial (!) .

10. Overall, the decision underscores the principle that maintenance obligations must be reasonable, supported by evidence, and within the financial capacity of the paying spouse, considering both parties' needs and responsibilities (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.