ORDER : Ms. Sadhana Nehlani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. Documents filed by both the parties are taken on record. Heard. Aggrieved by the amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively sanctioned by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Case No. 805/16 vide order dated 20-6-2016, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (wife and daughter) have filed the present petition for enhancement of the same. 2. Submissions of the petitioners are that the Non-applicant/husband is a Senior Process Executor in a multinational company in Pune. He has admitted his salary as 24,000/- per month. While publishing a matrimonial proposal on a web portal in 2013, he mentioned his income as Rs. 3,60,000/- per annum. If this is taken into consideration, his present income must be Rs. 50,000/- per month. According to the Petitioner, otherwise also it is unbelievable that a Senior Process Executor working in a multinational software company gets such a small pay. It is submitted that the non-applicant/respondent did not submit his salary slip as production of the same would have been disclosed the actual salary that he gets. There is no liability on him towards his parents or brother or sister, while the applicants (wife and daughter) are totally dependent on him. The trial Court has considered their social status/back-ground and standard of living, but while reaching on the conclusion it did not appreciated all these facts properly. As before departing, both the parties were living in a good flat and maintaining a car and as per admission of the non-applicant, he was also saving money in a recurring deposit account. Otherwise also the post of the non-applicant shows that he and his wife (applicant) were leading a good life. It is further submitted that as only the petitioners and non-applicant in all three persons were dependent on the income of the non-applicant, therefore, they (petitioners) are entitled for 2/3 part of the income of the non-applicant. They have prayed for enhancement of the amount of maintenance to that extent. 3. Opposing the petition, the non-applicant/respondent has denied all the facts narrated by the applicants stating that apart from the maintenance directed to pay in the present matter, he is paying Rs. 9,000/- per month as rent for a house hired for residence of the non-applicant as per direction of the Family Court. 3. Opposing the petition, the non-applicant/respondent has denied all the facts narrated by the applicants stating that apart from the maintenance directed to pay in the present matter, he is paying Rs. 9,000/- per month as rent for a house hired for residence of the non-applicant as per direction of the Family Court. Thus, he is paying half of his pay towards maintenance. 4. The respondent has filed a rent agreement and receipt of depositing Rs. 30,000/- with the owner of the house to show that he has taken a house on rent for dwelling of the petitioner. He has also filed a photocopy of a compromise decree of divorce dated 14-3-2013, passed in Civil Suit No. 356-A/2012 to show the conduct of the petitioner. It is mentioned in this judgment that the petitioner had admitted that she did not want any maintenance allowance from her husband in that petition as she was capable to maintain herself. 5. The petitioners has filed two documents which are in the form of notice, given by the landlord of the house taken on rent by the respondent to show that the petitioner has not paid the rent, so, the landlord has asked him to vacate the house. She has also submitted that she is not in a position to work or earn as her daughter is only one year old and no one is there to look-after her. 6. Document submitted by the petitioner shows that the respondent is not paying house rent. The respondent failed to produce any receipt of payment of rent. It is submitted by him that he has paid Rs. 30,000/- in advance to the landlord and he is deducting the rent from the same, but this does not seem to be a correct argument as this is against the normal practice and procedure of tenancy. If it is taken as correct, for the sake of argument only, even then this amount was sufficient only for 3 months rent. There is no other evidence which shows that the non-applicant is paying rent. 7. If it is taken as correct, for the sake of argument only, even then this amount was sufficient only for 3 months rent. There is no other evidence which shows that the non-applicant is paying rent. 7. Judgment dated 14-3-2013, filed by the respondent is also of no avail as this does not belong to the present parties, antecedents of the petitioner No. 1 is irrelevant in the present proceedings and the same was passed in the circumstances prevailing at that time, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on this judgment and decree for reaching any conclusion in the present petition. 8. Considering the arguments put forth by both the parties and the documents submitted by them so also the income admitted or revealed from the documents and also keeping in view the financial and social status of the parties, present scenario and level of inflation, I am of the considered opinion that the amount sanctioned in favour of the petitioners are not proportionate to the income of the respondent and status of the parties. Therefore, while maintaining the order of the trial Court of awarding maintenance, the amount is modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to the petitioner No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to the petitioner No. 2 (daughter). 9. With this modification, the petition stands disposed of however, no order as to costs.