JUDGMENT : Sumeet Goel, J. 1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala (hereinafter to be referred as ‘impugned order’) praying for modification of the said order for enhancing the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. Vide the impugned order; the petitioners (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No. 1-wife and Rs.2500/-per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughters) from the date of the filing of the petition alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- The petitioners (herein) had filed a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973 before the Family Court, stating that they are the wife and minor daughters, 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 argued that the learned 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 Family Court ought to have considered the disparity between the actual income of the respondent and the paltry sum awarded, which is grossly inadequate to meet even the basic necessities of life. Learned counsel has submitted that taking into consideration ever-increasing cost of living, including essential commodities, education, medical expenses and other household needs, the enhancement of the maintenance amount is urgently warranted. It has been further submitted that the financial obligations of the respondent-husband cannot overshadow his primary duty of providing maintenance to the petitioners. Furthermore, the learned Family Court has completely overlooked the growing financial responsibilities of two minor daughters, both of whom require care, education and proper upbringing. 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 a meagre sum of Rs.8,000/-. 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 to at least 15,000/- per month. 3. 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 to at least 15,000/- per month. 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 from consideration the materials placed on record before it. It has been further argued that the respondent-husband has expressed his willingness to reconcile with the petitioners by filing a petition under Section 9 of the HMA. According to him, the respondent has the responsibility of looking after his ailing mother, who is suffering from diabetes and hypertension and whom he is obliged to maintain, before fastening with the liability to pay the interim maintenance. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner No. 1-wife, having done M.A. in history, is capable of earning her livelihood and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month by giving coaching classes and hence has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the minor daughters. Hence, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record. 5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324 ; relevant whereof reads as under: “II Payment of interim Maintenance (i) The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. 1973 (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days’ from the date of service of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find that application remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by parties, enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of applications for maintenance at the interim stage for several years defeats the very object of the legislation. The delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by parties, enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of applications for maintenance at the interim stage for several years defeats the very object of the legislation. (ii) At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount of guess-work or rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded. It s often seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income. 74. It has therefore, become necessary to lay down a procedure to streamline, the proceedings, since a dependant wife, who has no other source of income, has to take recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives during the interregnum to sustain herself and the minor children, till she begins receiving interim maintenance. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (j) The concerned Family Court /District Court/Magistrate’s Court must make an endeavour to decide the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 132. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court, as the case may be, throughout the country; xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 6. Vide the impugned order passed by the Family Court, the aspect of interim maintenance has been decided. Vide the impugned order passed by the Family Court, the aspect of interim maintenance has been decided. It goes without saying that a decision upon the aspect (especially quantum) of interim maintenance, being result of some element of estimation, has to be construed accordingly as the entitlement of the applicant (making a plea for grant of interim maintenance) cannot be based upon exact arithmetical calculations at such stage. The order granting interim maintenance, indubitably, is subject to final adjudication and it is a provisional step subject to final determination to be made at the conclusion of proceedings. In other words, the interim maintenance is only tentative & is subject to fixation of final maintenance 7. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The learned Family Court has found the gross monthly income of the respondent (herein)-husband as Rs39,051/- and his net income has been found to be Rs.34,976/- per month. This assessment is not under challenge in the instant petition at the instance of the petitioner-wife (herein). However, the learned Family Court has granted deduction of Rs.10,872/- towards EMI being paid by the husband and has accordingly assessed the net income received in hand as Rs.24,104/- per month. In view thereof, the learned Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioners (herein) (i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No. 1-wife (herein) and Rs.2500/-per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (herein). At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar vs. Raj Kumari, 1971 AIR 234; relevant whereof reads as under: “19. It was further argued before us that the High Court went wrong in allowing maintenance at 25% of the income of the appellant as found by the Income Tax Department in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. It was contended that not only should a deduction be made of income-tax but also of house rent, electricity charges. the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant. In our view some of these deductions are not allowable for the purpose of assessment of “free income” as envisaged by the Judicial Committee. Income Tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. In our view some of these deductions are not allowable for the purpose of assessment of “free income” as envisaged by the Judicial Committee. Income Tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant’s practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as allowed by the income-tax authorities i.e. in case the authorities found that it was necessary for the appellant to maintain a car.” 7.1. Further; the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled as Marryamma @ Maryamal vs. Shri Mani, 2023 DHC 2411; has held as under: “14. In the opinion of this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent that while assessing the income of the respondent, the Court has to consider that he is making payment of more than Rs.10,000/- per month towards EMI of the loan that he has taken towards repair of his house is bereft of any merit since it has been categorically laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that only mandatory, statutory deductions are permitted to be deducted for the purpose of assessment of income of the husband. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 7 whereby it has been observed as under: “8 No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case...” 15. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case...” 15. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Sharma v. Sunita Sharma, 2021 SCC Online Del 694 also, after considering several judicial precedents, had observed that only mandatory deductions and compulsory contributions are to be taken into account while ascertaining the amount of maintenance. The relevant observations read as under: 24. In the opinion of this Court, while calculating the quantum of maintenance, the income has to be ascertained keeping in mind that the deductions only towards income tax and compulsory contributions like GPF, EPF etc. are permitted and no deductions towards house rent, electric charges, repayment of loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted. On this aspect, the pertinent observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 , which have been followed by a Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Seema v. Gourav Juneja, 2018 SCC Online P&H 3045, are as under:- “12. Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves, shall be obligated to do so. A moral duty and a statutory obligation is cast upon the husband to maintain his wife, minor children, parents who otherwise are not capable of maintaining themselves. A person cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his statutory liability by way of availing huge loans and reducing a substantial amount of his salary for repayment of the same every month. Deductions that are made from the gross salary towards long term savings, which a person would get back at the end of his service and such as deductions towards Provident Fund, General Group Insurance Scheme, L.I.C. Premium, State Life Insurance can be deemed to be an asset that he is creating for himself. In arriving at the income of a party only involuntary deductions like income tax, provident fund contribution etc. are to be excluded. Therefore, such deductions cannot be deducted or excluded from his salary while computing his “means” to pay maintenance. In the case of Dr. In arriving at the income of a party only involuntary deductions like income tax, provident fund contribution etc. are to be excluded. Therefore, such deductions cannot be deducted or excluded from his salary while computing his “means” to pay maintenance. In the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 : (1970) 3 SCC 129 : AIR 1971 SC 234 while deciding the question of quantum of maintenance to be paid, the argument raised that deduction not only of income-tax but also of house rent, electricity charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant was not allowed. Only deductions towards income-tax and contributions to provident fund which had to be made compulsorily were allowed. The relevant portion of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar’s case (supra) reads as under:- “19. It was further argued before us that the High Court went wrong in allowing maintenance at 25% of the income of the appellant as found by the Income Tax Department in assessment proceedings 2023 DHC 2411 under the Income Tax Act. It was contended that not only should a deduction be made of income-tax but also of house rent, electricity charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant. In our view some of these deductions are not allowed for the purpose of assessment of “free income” as envisaged by the Judicial Committee. Income Tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant’s practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as allowed by the income-tax authorities i.e. in case the authorities found that it was necessary for the appellant to maintain a car.” 13. In a nutshell, a husband cannot be allowed to shirk his responsibility of paying maintenance to his wife, minor child, and parents by availing loans and paying EMIs thereon, which would lead to a reduction of his carry home salary.” 8. In a nutshell, a husband cannot be allowed to shirk his responsibility of paying maintenance to his wife, minor child, and parents by availing loans and paying EMIs thereon, which would lead to a reduction of his carry home salary.” 8. Keeping in view the principles governing the assessment of quantum of maintenance (whether interim or final) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973, it is indubitable that the deduction made from the gross income of the husband, which are on account of own volition of the husband, cannot be permitted. It is only the statutory deductions, which are beyond the control of the husband, which can be taken into account. The statutory deductions, which are mandated by law and beyond the control of the husband, can be taken into account. The respondent-husband cannot be allowed to reduce his financial liability towards the maintenance of his spouse or children by resorting to voluntary deductions or expenses that do not have legal compulsion. The primary obligation to maintain the dependents is not diluted through artificial reduction of income. 9. In this view of the matter, the net monthly income of the salary of the respondent (herein)-husband comes to Rs.34976/- per month. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Family Court is modified to the extent that the respondent (herein)-husband shall pay to petitioner No. 1-wife a sum of Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.3500/- per month each to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (herein) from the date of filing of the petition. 10. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Family Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. 11. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.