parameters which are required to be taken into consideration at the stage of computing interim maintenance. She points out that the documents produced by the Respondent clearly indicate that the Respondent is neither the owner of the apartment nor the owner of two vehicles. She points out that though the income of the Respondent from his services as a Poultry Sales Assistant was only Rs. 10,000/- p.m.. the learned Family Court has taken income as Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Ms. Nanavare points out that the delivery vehicle was earlier owned by the Respondent, however, the Respondent had taken the loan from his sister and he was unable to repay the same, therefore the vehicle had to be transferred in the name of his sister. Ms. Nanavare submits that the Respondent is indeed a Poultry Sales Assistant but on some occasions, the driver of the delivery van does not report for duties, the Respondent has to drive such van and it is in that context the statement was made that the Respondent is a driver. She submits that this does not amount to shifting the stands. She submits that all other issues which are now sought to be raised by the Applicants will have to be decided only on the basis of evidence in the course of trial. Since the impugned order has dealt with all the issues relating interim maintenance, there is absolutely no
