VIKAS YADAV Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order 27/5/2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, court, Gurugram (hereinafter to be referred as 'impugned order') or modification of the said order and consequently enhancing the of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. Vide the order; the petitioners (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000.00 per month (i.e. Rs.20,000.00 per month to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.5,000.00 per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3(minor children)) from the date of the filing of the petition. The s (herein) had filed a petition, under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 e Family Court, stating that they are the wife and minor children, respectively, of the respondent (herein) and are unable to maintain themselves and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to them.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has iterated that d Family Court has erred in determining the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to the petitioners (herein) insofar as the income of the respondent is concerned. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-husband has concealed his true financial standing. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.1-wife alongwith two minor children, has no independent source of income and bears the sole responsibility of caring for the two minor children. It has been further reiterated that the minor son i.e. petitioner No.3 is suffering from Astigmatism-Simple Myopic Astigmatism in eyes, requiring constant medical care and attention. The expenses for the medical treatment of petitioner No.3 (minor son), alongwith other necessities, far exceed the amount of maintenance that has been granted by the Family Court. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband is employed in a multinational company, earning a monthly income of Rs.1.00 lacs. However, as per the affidavit filed by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, under the heading of income and expenditure, he has claimed his monthly expenses to be Rs.81,000.00 while simultaneously declaring a monthly income of Rs.75,000.00 under the head of income of the respondent-husband. This inconsistency clearly indicates that the respondent-husband declared expenses surpass his reported income, which suggests that the respondent has manipulated his financial disclosure in the affidavit with an intent to minimize the maintenance amount. Learned counsel has submitted that taking into consideration the ever-increasing cost of living, including essential commodities, education, medical expenses and other household needs, the enhancement of the maintenance amount is urgently warranted. Learned counsel has further submitted the recurring costs have escalated significantly due to inflation and increasing living costs, making it impossible for the petitioners to manage on an awarded amount of interim maintenance. Learned counsel has argued that the maintenance amount awarded is insufficient to sustain a decent and respectable living standard for the petitioners and hence the quantum of interim maintenance be modified and enhanced suitably.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the Family Court, while granting the interim maintenance to the petitioners, has completely ignored the materials placed on record before it. It has been further argued that the petitioner No.1 has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor children. Hence, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.