Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Kavita Salunkhe seeks interim monthly support of ₹12,000 from Nikhil Salunkhe. Nikhil agrees that temporary support should be paid, but disputes the requested amount and asks for materially lower support, identifying ₹6,000 as the alternative discussed in the record. 2. The hearing record contains Kavita’s submissions, a self-prepared monthly expense sheet, and a cropped screenshot showing a payroll transfer. The parties have had an opportunity to address the limits of those materials. Kavita says she has no further proof beyond her word and the expense sheet. Nikhil says he cannot provide a salary breakdown or other support for his reimbursement explanation. The court therefore decides the request on the available record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are: (a) what the record establishes about Kavita’s recurring monthly needs; (b) what it establishes about Nikhil’s ability to pay; and (c) what interim monthly amount is proportionate. Under the supplied Rule 13, support turns on both need and ability. Rule 1 places the burden on the party seeking relief to point to facts or records supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records, while Rule 6 requires the remedy to match what the evidence supports. Submissions of the parties 4. Kavita says she earns approximately ₹4,000 monthly from alterations and has expenses of ₹16,000, leaving a ₹12,000 shortfall. She relies on the expense sheet and the screenshot of a ₹40,000 payroll transfer. In closing, she argues that Nikhil could contribute ₹12,000 even if his net income were ₹32,000, and that support is important to her dignity. 5. Nikhil agrees that temporary support is appropriate. He argues that the screenshot shows only one transfer and does not establish regular take-home pay of ₹40,000. He says ₹8,000 may have been reimbursement, but expressly concedes that he has no record supporting that explanation and cannot provide the promised salary breakdown. He also points out that the expense sheet includes a ₹2,000 medicine purchase that was one-time, and asks for materially lower support. Evidence and findings 6. Kavita’s expense sheet lists rent of ₹7,000, food of ₹4,000, utilities of ₹1,500, travel of ₹1,500, and medicines of ₹2,000. The record acknowledges that the medicine purchase was one-time. Excluding it, the sheet estimates recurring costs of ₹14,000. The sheet is clear and itemized, but it is self-prepared and not independently verified. It is evidence of Kavita’s estimate, not conclusive proof that each expense is incurred in precisely that amount every month. 7. The same sheet notes approximate alterations income of ₹4,000. The record does not establish whether that income is regular. The court therefore cannot treat either the stated income or the resulting ₹12,000 shortfall as precisely proven. Kavita’s statement that she has no other proof is accepted as an explanation of the limits of her case, not as independent corroboration. 8. The cropped screenshot shows Nikhil’s name, a payroll date, and a ₹40,000 transfer total for one month. It supports receipt of that transfer in that month. Because the component details are outside the crop, it does not establish that the full amount was regular take-home salary. Nikhil’s claim that ₹8,000 was reimbursement is an attributed explanation, not a verified fact. His own submissions acknowledge that he has no supporting record. The court does not accept either ₹40,000 as proven regular monthly take-home pay or ₹32,000 as proven regular net salary. Reasons 9. On recurring need, the plaintiff has met the burden to a limited but meaningful extent. The itemized sheet supports an estimate of ₹14,000 in recurring basic costs. Its self-prepared nature and the uncertainty about the regularity of alterations income prevent a finding that Kavita has proven a precise monthly shortfall of ₹12,000. The one-time medicine purchase cannot properly be counted as a recurring monthly expense. The issue of recurring need is established only to the extent of the estimate supported by the sheet, not as an independently verified exact budget. 10. On ability to pay, the plaintiff has shown some evidence of resources through the ₹40,000 payroll transfer. The screenshot’s limits matter: one transfer does not establish a regular monthly amount or its components. But Nikhil’s proposed reimbursement deduction is also uncertain. The court does not shift the plaintiff’s burden to Nikhil; rather, it weighs the evidence actually presented. The transfer supports some ability to contribute, while neither side has established a precise regular income or a reliable ceiling of ₹6,000. 11. On the amount, neither party’s proposed figure is established as an exact calculation. Kavita’s ₹12,000 request relies on a stated income and expense total that are not fully verified, and includes a one-time cost in the original total. Nikhil’s request for materially lower support is not supported by proof that his regular income was ₹32,000 or that ₹6,000 is all he can afford. His agreement that temporary support should be paid is relevant, but does not itself determine the amount. 12. Rule 13 requires consideration of both need and ability, and Rule 6 calls for a proportionate remedy. The record supports recurring basic costs, some income for Kavita, and one payroll transfer to Nikhil, while leaving regular income and the reimbursement claim unresolved. On that limited record, ₹8,000 per month is a fair interim amount: it recognizes the supported recurring need and evidence of resources without treating the unverified ₹12,000 shortfall or the unverified ₹32,000 salary explanation as established. This is a decision on the present record, not a finding of either party’s exact ongoing income or expenses. Final order 13. Kavita’s request for interim monthly support is granted in part. Nikhil shall pay Kavita ₹8,000 per month as interim support. The request for ₹12,000 per month is denied to the extent it exceeds that amount. Nikhil’s request to limit support to ₹6,000 or otherwise materially reduce the amount is denied on this record. No additional amount, interest, or costs is awarded because none is supported by the supplied record or requested as a separately established remedy. 14. The order is limited to the interim support amount presented for decision. It does not establish the parties’ precise regular incomes or independently verify every budget item. The disposition reflects the evidence available after both sides stated that no further supporting proof was available.