JUDGMENT : Mr.Sangeet Lodha,J. 1. These two appeals arising out of order dated 20.9.19 passed by the Family Court No.2, Kota in Civil Misc. Case No.94/19, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Appeal No.56/2020 has been filed by the appellant Nitesh Agarwal (husband) assailing the order granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent (wife) a sum of Rs.40,000/- for herself and Rs. 15,000/- each for two minor children Darsh and Mihit whereas, the appeal No.99/2020 is filed by the appellant Smt. Aarti for enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the Family Court. 3. The facts relevant are that Shri Nitesh Agarwal (husband) filed a petition against Smt. Aarti (wife) seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”). During the pendency of the petition, the wife filed an application under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the husband a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month for herself and Rs.1,00,000/- each for her two minor sons Darsh and Mihit. That apart, she claimed litigation expenses a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in lump sum. The wife averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas as per income tax return, the husband is earning Rs.26,52,082/- per annum, however, his actual income from the firm Sitaram Radhakishan is Rs.80,00,000/- per month and he is also earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month as rental income from a multi-storey commercial building situated in Scheme No.54, Indore. The details of immovable properties owned by the husband and his bank balance were also set out in the application filed. No reply to the application preferred by the wife as aforesaid was filed by the husband, however, an application was filed on his behalf disclosing his income during the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as Rs.9,03,689/-, Rs.14,77,568/- and Rs.10,29,901/- respectively and taking a specific stand that keeping in view the details of the income furnished if appropriate order is passed by the Court awarding maintenance to his wife and minor children, he has no objection. 4. 4. The application preferred by the wife was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 4.1.18, directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife for herself and Rs.8,000/- each for her two minor children. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.18 passed by the Family Court, the wife preferred an appeal being D.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3791/18 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 3.7.19 and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court No.2, Kota to decide the application filed under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955 afresh, with the directions in the following terms: “The impugned order dated 4.1.2018 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court No.2, Kota to decide the petition under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh within three months from the date next fixed before it on production of certified copy of this order. Parties would be at liberty to submit any further document in rebuttal in support of their case. In the meanwhile, respondent shall continue to pay the amount of maintenance granted by the impugned order till any fresh order is passed by the Family Court No.2, Kota.” 6. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court while deciding the application preferred by the wife afresh, determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite as indicated above. The Family Court also directed the appellant husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent wife in lump sum towards the litigation expenses. Hence, these appeals. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband contended that the Family Court has seriously erred in determining the income of the appellant at Rs.26,47,347/- on the basis of the income tax return filed for the assessment year 2016-17 and other documents placed on record. It is submitted that the return of the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were also available on record, however, instead of taking the average of the income as disclosed in the returns filed for three consecutive years, the assessment of the income of the appellant on the basis of solely relying upon the return filed for assessment year 2016- 17 is ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant showing the income of the appellant husband for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016- 17 as Rs.9,03,689/-, Rs.14,77,568/- and Rs.10,29,901/- has altogether been ignored by the Family Court. Learned counsel submitted that net disposable income could have been arrived at only after deducting the expenditures incurred as also the tax deposited and thus, the Family Court has erred in treating the gross income of the appellant as net disposable income. Learned counsel while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan: (2019) 12 SCC 303 , laying down the factors to be considered in calculation of maintenance, submitted that ignoring the principles laid down governing award of maintenance, the order impugned passed by the Family Court awarding exorbitant maintenance deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent wife submitted that as a matter of fact, looking at the income of the appellant husband which comes to more than Rs.80,00,000/- per annum, the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month for the wife herself and two minor children is too meagre and the same deserves to be enhanced by this Court appropriately. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the annual income of the appellant husband from business and other sources, the factum of huge fixed assets owned by him, could not have been ignored by the Family Court. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to the material placed on record, submitted that the appellant husband has purchased agriculture land for Rs.5,49,000/-, a plot in the Scheme No.78, Indore for Rs.39,45,000/- and a plot in Shanti Niketan Colony for Rs.1,17,00,000/- and thus, the value of his fixed assets comes to Rs.1,51,64,662/-. Learned counsel submitted that as per the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant placed on record, the appellant husband has incurred expenditure of Rs.4,41,000/- towards the legal expenses during the assessment year 2017-18, which is also indicative of his sound financial capacity and thus, the contention sought to be raised that the appellant husband is not in position to pay the maintenance as determined by the Family Court is absolutely untenable. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of maintenance pendente lite. 11. In Reena Salkan’s case (supra), the Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena: (2015)6 SCC 353 , wherein while dealing with the question with regard to determination of the amount of maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Court observed that the concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. The Court observed that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. The Court further observed that in proceedings of such a nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive the wife the benefit of living with dignity. 12. In Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain: 2010 AIR SCW 441, the Supreme Court observed: “8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.” 13. In the backdrop of the settled position of law discussed as above, adverting to the facts of the present case, indubitably, the appellant husband is operating the business in the name of S.R.Singhania Foods, a proprietorship concern. As per the income tax return filed by the husband as proprietor of the concern S.R.Singhania Foods for the assessment year 2016-17, his gross income from the said business was Rs.25,01,797/- and in the return filed for the assessment year 2017-18, the gross income is disclosed as Rs.21,28,807/-. But then, the certificate issued by the appellant’s Chartered Accountant G.B.Agrawal & Co., apart from the business income from the concern S.R.Singhania Foods, the appellant is also drawing salary from the firm Sitaram Radhakishan. He has the interest income from the deposits in the firms Sitaram Radhakishan and S.R.Singhania Foods. Thus, the documents on record manifestly indicate that while disclosing the annual income as aforesaid in the application filed, the appellant husband has concealed material facts and not approached the Court with clean hands. He has the interest income from the deposits in the firms Sitaram Radhakishan and S.R.Singhania Foods. Thus, the documents on record manifestly indicate that while disclosing the annual income as aforesaid in the application filed, the appellant husband has concealed material facts and not approached the Court with clean hands. It is pertinent to note that besides the income earned by the husband as aforesaid, as per the capital account for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2015, the appellant husband has received Rs.25,00,000/- in cash as gift from his father Vinod Agarwal. Similarly, in the year ending on 31st March, 2016 he has received Rs.10,00,000/- as gift from Kajal Agarwal. As per the balance sheet, the appellant husband has acquired agriculture land for consideration of Rs.5,49,993/-. He has acquired a plot in Scheme No.78, Indore for Rs. 39,45,000/- and has ½ share in the plot at Shanti Niketan Colony, the value whereof is declared as Rs.1,17,00,000/-. Suffice it to say that the appellant husband has handsome earning and reasonably good financial position. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances noticed above, we are of the opinion that the amount of maintenance determined by the Family Court payable by the appellant husband to the respondent wife appears to be in little lower side and therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced reasonably. 15.Taking into consideration the total annual income of the appellant husband from all sources, his capital assets as also the fact that the respondent wife has responsibility to maintain herself and two minor children with no adequate source of income of her own, we consider it appropriate and accordingly, direct the appellant husband to pay the maintenance pendente lite to the respondent wife for herself a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- each for two minor children Darsh and Mihit. 16.It has come on record that the appellant husband has incurred expenditure a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- towards the legal expenses during the assessment year 2017-18 and thus, the award of Rs.15,000/- in lump sum towards litigation expenses to the respondent wife by the Family Court also appears to be in the lower side, which we consider it appropriate to enhance to Rs.50,000/-. 17. In view of the discussion above, the appeal No.56/2020 preferred by the appellant husband Nitesh Agarwal is dismissed. The appealNo.99/2020 preferred by Smt. Aarti is partly allowed. 17. In view of the discussion above, the appeal No.56/2020 preferred by the appellant husband Nitesh Agarwal is dismissed. The appealNo.99/2020 preferred by Smt. Aarti is partly allowed. Smt. Aarti shall be entitled for maintenance a sum of Rs.50,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- each for her two minor children w.e.f. 4.1.18. Shri Nitesh Agarwal (husband) shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to his wife Smt. Aarti Agarwal instead of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses awarded by the Family Court No.2, Kota. The order passed by the Family Court shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.