Chandaram Bunkar vs Smt. Ramadevi

This miscellaneous appeal, u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been preferred against the judgment dated 7-2-2009, passed by the learned Family Court No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur.

An application had been filed by the Appellant u/s 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for reduction of the amount of maintenance, which had been awarded to the Respondent-wife on account of the fact that at the time when the order was passed granting maintenance the Appellant-husband was drawing salary of about Rs. 35,000/- per month and an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month had been awarded by way of maintenance to the Respondent-wife.

The submission is that after the aforesaid order allowing maintenance the Appellant had retired with effect from 31-12-2004 and was now receiving a provisional pension of about Rs. 15,000/- per month and, therefore, keeping in view the provision of Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 this Court is empowered to redue or alter the amount of maintenance in the changed circumstances.

We find that the learned Family Court has taken into account the fact that the Appellant was as per Annexure-1, the Pension Pay Order, submitted by the Appellant, drawing provisional pension of Rs. 15,115/- on account of certain disciplinary matters having remained pending against the, Appellant and, hence, his pension had not been finalized.

The learned Family Court, therefore, on the principles that the maintenance may be awarded upto the extent of Rs. 1/5th of the income of the spouse has maintained the amount of Rs. 3000/- taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant is drawing provisional pension of Rs. 15,115/- per month admittedly.

We have considered the submissions made before us and are of the opinion that the aforesaid principles adopted by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous and the award of 1/5th amount out of the income of the spouse by way of maintenance is just and reasonable.

Moreover, the learned Counsel for the Appellant was not able to state whether or not the provisional pension has been finalized and whether or not after 1-1-2006 the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission had been received by the Appellant and what is the revised provisional pension/pension being paid to the Appellant.

In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court.

Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed summarily.

The stay application (1422/2010) also stands dismissed.