Jagdev vs Rekha Rani

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated

14.05.2013 (Annexure P/3), passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar in an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby maintenance pendente lite for wife and four children has been fixed @ Rs. 7000/- per month and the litigation expenses have been fixed at Rs.

3,000/-. Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is already bearing the expenses of the children including the tuition fee, etc.

Learned counsel further contends that the respondent has concealed the fact of her income of Rs. 1500/- per month which comes as rent. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is only earning Rs. 2900/- per month and he cannot pay the maintenance beyond his means.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Firstly, it would be appropriate to mention here that eldest daughter is studying in Kalpana Chawla Polytechnic College, Ambala City, second

daughter is studying in 10th class in New Everest Senior Secondary School, Yamuna Nagar, third daughter is studying in 9th class and son is studying in 10th class. Besides four children, the wife is also to be maintained by the petitioner.

So far as the marriage is concerned, that is admitted. It is boundened duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and children.

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence/material on record, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is working as a contractor in

the Plywood Industry and has employed 10 persons for that job, so his income cannot be assessed in any circumstances less than Rs. 30000/- per

month. The finding of fact with regard to income has been recorded by the trial Court and the same cannot be re-appreciated.

So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to concealment of income of Rs. 1500/- per month by way

of rent which respondent is earning as she has let out three rooms of the house which is given to her by the mother of the petitioner is concerned,

this contention on the face of it cannot be accepted. The learned District Judge, after appreciating the evidence and the material before him, has come to the conclusion that the wife and the children deserve maintenance at the rate of at least Rs. 8500/- per month and after deducting the rental income of Rs. 1500/- per month, the maintenance pendente lite has been reduced to Rs. 7000/- per month for five persons. The amount of maintenance as awarded by the impugned order can by no stretch of imagination be said to be on higher side. Rather, the amount of maintenance awarded for five persons including children studying in senior classes apparently appears to be on lower side. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is per se misconceived and the same has already been considered in detail by the learned District Judge. Hence,

rejected.

In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed.