JUDGMENT Paresh Upadhyay, J. Challenge in this petition is made by the wife and minor daughter to the order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara dated 12.05.2017 below application Exh.15 in H.M.P. No. 534 of 2012. The said application was filed by these petitioners, seeking interim maintenance from the respondent husband / father. By the impugned order, the Family Court has partly allowed the said application and ordered the respondent - father to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the minor daughter with effect from the date of application. The said application is however rejected qua the wife. This is challenged by both - the wife and the daughter before this Court in this petition, principally on two counts. Firstly, that the maintenance ought to have been granted to the wife and secondly that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- qua the daughter should have been more. 2. The principal proceeding (being H.M.P. No.534 of 2012) was instituted by the husband (through his father as the power of attorney holder), seeking divorce from his wife. The merits of the said proceedings are not gone into by this Court, since the point for consideration before this Court in this petition is only the sustainability of the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application for maintenance qua the wife, and insufficiency of the amount of maintenance qua the minor daughter. 3. Both the parties have appeared before this Court inperson. They are heard at length by this Court. Submissions are made qua merits of the matter as well by both the parties, however as already noted above, since the point for consideration before this Court in this petition is only the sustainability of the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application for maintenance qua the wife, and insufficiency of the amount of maintenance qua the minor daughter, this Court has considered only those arguments, which are relevant for the point at issue. 4. The petitioner (wife) has submitted that the Court below fell in error on two counts. Firstly, the maintenance ought to have been granted to her as well, and secondly, the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month qua the daughter should have been more. It is submitted that, the petitioner has, by her application before the Trial Court prayed that, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- be awarded to her and an amount of Rs. Firstly, the maintenance ought to have been granted to her as well, and secondly, the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month qua the daughter should have been more. It is submitted that, the petitioner has, by her application before the Trial Court prayed that, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- be awarded to her and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- be awarded for the minor daughter. In support of her submissions, the petitioner has taken this Court extensively through the material on record, including the averments made in the application Exh.15 and the material on record before the Trial Court. She has also taken this Court through the additional material placed before this Court by her and by the respondent husband. She has relied on the following decisions to support her case. (i) The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court, recorded on Cr.No. 6198 of 2013 (dated 12.12.2016) in the case of Amit Kumar Vs Navjot Dubey. (ii) The decision of Delhi High Court, recorded on CRL.REV.P. 363 of 2016 & Crl.M.A. 8005 of 2016 in the case of Deepak Malhotra Vs Deepti Malhotra. 5. On the other hand, the respondent husband, who has also appeared in-person, has supported the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. He has submitted that no amount could be ordered to be paid either to his wife or to his daughter as he is a student and having no means of income. He has submitted that the direction to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his minor daughter is not challenged by him, however his submissions be treated to contest this petition. The respondent husband has also extensively taken this Court through the material on record and has submitted that no interference be made by this Court. He has relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions. (i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994) AIR SC 853. (ii) Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 3 RCR(Criminal) 477. (iii) Padmaja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) AIR SC 1398. (iv) Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash and Ors., (2013) AIR SC 2078. 6. Having heard both the parties in-person and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 6.1 The petitioner and the respondent got married on 31.01.2008. Both were staying together in the United States of America. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) AIR SC 1398. (iv) Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash and Ors., (2013) AIR SC 2078. 6. Having heard both the parties in-person and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 6.1 The petitioner and the respondent got married on 31.01.2008. Both were staying together in the United States of America. From their wedlock, a child - daughter is born on 09.10.2010 in the United States of America. The mother, along with daughter returned to India on 07.09.2011. There is a word against word for the circumstances leading to this. Fact remains that, the petitioners (wife and daughter) have returned to India on 07.09.2011 and are not staying with in-laws. 6.2 It is the father-in-law of the petitioner - wife (as the power of attorney holder of his son respondent husband) who filed divorce petition in the month of December, 2012. The pleadings sworn by the father-in-law, more particularly para : 4 & 7 of the plaint, are not only 'not in good taste, it is very ugly' and under no circumstances, it could have been sworn by the said deponent, as 'true to his knowledge'. During the course of hearing, the parties were asked to go through the contents of the said paragraphs. This Court has thought it proper not to quote the relevant thereof in this order, for 'decorum'. 6.3 In the said proceedings, the wife filed an application for maintenance, pointing out the details of the income and financial status of her husband and her in-laws. The husband, at the relevant time was staying at the United States of America and was doing job there, in a multi-national company 'Dell'. During the pendency of the proceedings, the husband returned to India. He has appeared before the Court below inperson. 6.4 The Court below, on the basis of the material produced before it, passed an order awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance of minor daughter only. The wife is not awarded any maintenance by the Family Court. 6.5 On what basis, the Trial Court arrived at the figure of Rs. 5,000/- also requires consideration. Hundreds of pages are placed on record by way of pleadings by the husband before the Trial Court, so also before this Court. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance of minor daughter only. The wife is not awarded any maintenance by the Family Court. 6.5 On what basis, the Trial Court arrived at the figure of Rs. 5,000/- also requires consideration. Hundreds of pages are placed on record by way of pleadings by the husband before the Trial Court, so also before this Court. Since the husband was serving in the United States of America in the company 'Dell' and since it is his case that now he is not in service, the first question which may crop up is, as to when he returned back to India, what are the details of his VISA and other employment related issues. For that purpose, apart from his income details, passport details were also relevant, which was asked for by the Trial Court. It was responded to the Trial Court by the husband saying that, his passport was not traceable and as and when it would be traced, the same shall be put on record, however it never came on record. The Trial Court also did not press for it. 6.6 Since substantial time has passed by this time and the parties are appearing in-person before this Court, this Court has also inquired from the husband about his passport. Before this Court also, it is asserted by the respondent husband that, the passport could still not be traced by him and therefore it is not placed on record. It is inquired, whether any police complaint is lodged for the purpose of getting fresh passport, to which it is replied that, it is not done. 6.7 The details with regard to his income is also not placed on record by the husband. An extreme stand is now taken by him that, he is not employed anywhere and he is only pursuing his law study. Thus according to him, he is a student, who should not be fasten with any liability to pay any maintenance to his wife and/or to his minor daughter. It is in this factual background and the extent of bonafide of the husband (or lack thereof), this matter is considered by this Court. This is coupled with the fact that the head of the family the father-in-law had filed affidavit, certifying those pleadings to be true to his knowledge, which could not have been. (see para : 6.2 above). It is in this factual background and the extent of bonafide of the husband (or lack thereof), this matter is considered by this Court. This is coupled with the fact that the head of the family the father-in-law had filed affidavit, certifying those pleadings to be true to his knowledge, which could not have been. (see para : 6.2 above). 6.8 This Court has considered the material on record. The best evidence to arrive at any conclusion qua grant / enhancement of the maintenance would be the income details of the parties. The husband is concealing the same from the Court. The general financial condition of in-laws is put on record by the petitioner- mother, who is looking after her daughter with whatever little livelihood she earns. The said material on record indicates that the respondent husband and his family is in the bracket of 'rich people'. Further, the matter needs to be decided by drawing adverse inference against the husband, in the circumstances noted above. The conduct of the parties may not be relevant while quantification of amount of maintenance, however, it is very difficult to accept the stand of the respondent husband who is a technically qualified person, who was in the employment of a reputed company in the United States of America that, his passport is not traceable, he has not applied for fresh passport, he has not informed the police authorities as well in that regard and now he is only a student and the matter be decided accordingly. The father of the respondent husband is in business. Their property details are also on record. Keeping all these aspects in view, this Court finds that, refusal to grant any maintenance to the petitioner wife by the Trial Court is unsustainable and further that grant of only Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor daughter is too meager an amount, which calls for interference by this Court. The petitioner wife and daughter are entitled to the standard of living, if not that of the respondent, at-least that one, in which the mother can up-bring her minor daughter, with due dignity and the comforts she deserves. 6.9 There is an additional factor which would further tilt the balance against the respondent husband. The petitioner wife and daughter are entitled to the standard of living, if not that of the respondent, at-least that one, in which the mother can up-bring her minor daughter, with due dignity and the comforts she deserves. 6.9 There is an additional factor which would further tilt the balance against the respondent husband. At the time of filing H.M.P.No.534 of 2012, the husband had, through his power of attorney holder father, also filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application (Guardian Application) No.44 of 2012 under the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of minor daughter. The said application is on record. The averments in the said application are inter alia to the effect that, the husband is in a better financial position to maintain his daughter and that he can afford her schooling in an international school at the United States of America. Further, the husband has stated that, he is capable enough to spend any amount for well upbringing of his minor daughter. The Trial Court, vide order dated 11.09.2017, has dismissed the said application for default and has observed that, the applicant husband has no interest to proceed with the matter. Considering the said averments made by the husband in that application, this Court finds that, the respondent husband has been blowing hot and cold together before the Family Court, as well as before this Court to escape from his liability to maintain his wife and minor daughter, which can not be permitted. The decisions relied by the respondent husband, which are noted above, would not take his case any further, on the face of the facts and findings, as noted above, by this Court. 6.10 In totality, this Court finds that, the ends of justice would meet if total amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month is ordered to be paid by the respondent husband, as interim maintenance, to the petitioner wife and to the minor daughter. It is noted that the details with regard to the income of the respondent husband is concealed from the Trial Court and also from this Court. In this factual background, the pleadings on record are considered by this Court with appropriate adverse inference against the respondent husband. It is also noted that while quantifying the amount, the other aspects like the standard of living of the in-laws etc., is also kept in view by this Court. 7. In this factual background, the pleadings on record are considered by this Court with appropriate adverse inference against the respondent husband. It is also noted that while quantifying the amount, the other aspects like the standard of living of the in-laws etc., is also kept in view by this Court. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 7.1 This petition is allowed. 7.2 The application Exh.15 filed by the present petitioners before the Trial Court in H.M.P. No. 534 of 2012 is partly allowed. 7.3 The impugned order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara dated 12.05.2017 below application Exh.15 in H.M.P. No. 534 of 2012 is modified to the extent that, the respondent husband is directed to pay total amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month, to the petitioner wife and minor daughter (consolidated amount for both of them), as interim maintenance, till the final disposal of the H.M.P.No.534 of 2012. This amount shall be payable from the date of application i.e. 11.03.2013. 7.4 The amount as directed above shall be paid by the respondent husband to the petitioner wife every month, regularly. The arrears till this month, shall be paid by the respondent husband to the petitioner wife, within a period of three months from today. The amount already paid by the respondent husband, pursuant to the direction of the Trial Court, shall be adjusted against the arrears to be paid by him. 8. After the pronouncement of this judgment, the respondent husband has requested that this order be stayed for some time. Considering the totality, this request is rejected