Maqsud Ali @ Maqsood Ali vs Rana Zarin And Ors

This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Misc. Case No. 96 of 2012 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to O.P. No.1, from the date of order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the deposition of the sons of the parties, examined as P.Ws. 5 and 7 in the court below, who have categorically stated that O.P. No.1 had on several occasions assaulted the petitioner. That the mother-in-law and other family members of the petitioner had also been assaulted by O.P. No.1. It is further submitted that, in fact, O.P. No.1 is a highly qualified lady and she has admitted that she has done a course in personality development. It is also submitted that the petitioner has given her a Xylo SUV vehicle for plying on rent to meet her expenses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit containing the salary statement of the petitioner and submitted that it would be evident, from the affidavit that after deductions under various heads, the petitioner's take home salary is only Rs. 18,554/-.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that maintenance is awarded to meet the daily needs of the dependent, and not for leading a life of luxury. It is submitted that the petitioner has to lookafter his aged and ailing parents and mentally retarded brother. He is also paying the fees for the education of his sons. In fact, O.P. No.1 is residing in the house of the petitioner and the expenses for her food and medical treatment is borne by the petitioner. It is argued that in the attending facts, the maintenance amount is exorbitantly excessive, therefore, it should be reduced. It is further submitted that the order for deduction towards maintenance amount from the salary of the petitioner was passed on 05.01.2018, without any notice being served upon the petitioner.

It is urged that the court below has committed perversity in recording of findings as it has not appreciated the material evidence in its proper perspective. It is contended in the attending circumstances the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of O.Ps., has submitted that O.P. No.1 is meeting the expenses of her sons which is admitted by the sons i.e., P.Ws. 5 and7, in their deposition during cross-examination wherein they have testified that their mother is looking after them and providing for their miscellaneous expenses.

Having heard the learned counsels, and on going through the depositions and the impugned order of the court below, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, that O.P. No.1 is a highly educated person, hence capable of maintaining herself is not founded on any cogent evidence. In fact the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the factum of gainful employment of O.P. No.1 and no document has been produced to show that she has an independent source of income. Admittedly, the relationship between the husband and wife is strained, and the wife is entitled to lead a life equal to the status of the petitioner/husband. It is evident that the court below has considered and elaborately discussed the evidence of the parties and directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to O.P. No.1, and has declined to grant any maintenance to the sons.

The petitioner is holding the post of Development Officer in L.I.C. As per the salary statement, the gross salary of the petitioner is approximately Rs.70,000/-. The deductions have been made towards medical claim, GIS premium HFL, EMI, provident fund, Income Tax and towards loan taken from the cooperative society. These deductions cannot be called as expenses incurred by the petitioner. In fact, provident fund is a saving and EMI is being paid as against the loan. Even after deduction of Rs.7,500/- towards maintenance amount to O.P. No.1, petitioner's take home salary is Rs.18,504/-.

Thus in the emergent facts and circumstances, this court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order.

As a result this revision stands dismissed.