Meetu Rahi & Anr vs Basant Yadav

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.2.2017 awarding monthly maintenance in Rs.2500/- to wife and Rs. 6000/- to the minor daughter, who is being maintained by the wife in the proceedings under Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

In computing maintenance, the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur has taken into account bank statement of respondent of the year 2009 showing his monthly income to be varying from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- while working as Marketing Executive with M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited. The impugned judgment also notes that appellant No.1 is M.A., LL.B. The respondent established that the first appellant has been enrolled as an Advocate but he could prove her monthly income to be Rs.25,000/-. The impugned decision also notes that two plots No.91 & 92, Surya Nagar, Titardi were owned by the respondent, which he had gifted to his mother.

It is in conspectus of aforenoted circumstance that we have been called upon to decide whether the impugned judgment suffers from any material irregularity in awarding the two amounts, as noted above, to the appellants. Another relevant fact which needs to be noted is that the respondent is now working with M/s.B.M. Construction and claims to be earning Rs.12,000/-; a fact which is a mere assertion.

From the fact that the respondent was owner of two plots is proof of his well-being financially. Unfortunately in India those who are in self-employment or in private employment, they manage to hide their true income and the only proof of income of spouses would be the lifestyle maintained by them. The colony in which they reside also throws some light on the financial well-being. The colony Surya Nagar, Titardi is in the outskirts of the city of Udaipur and colonization has taken place on agricultural lands of the village. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of the market-value of two plots as of today but the sale-deed (Exhibit-1 & Exhibit-2) show that the two plots were purchased for Rs.2 Lacs each in the year 2010.

The first appellant is an enrolled Advocate and her version that she is not earning a penny, cannot be prima facie accepted. At the same time, version of respondent that his monthly salary has been reduced to Rs.12,000/- from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- in the year 2009 is equally false. The only way available is to apply the rule of thumb. The rule of thumb is to take note of the fact that the respondent is B.Com and would be earning livelihood commensurate to his qualification. As noticed above, he managed to purchase two plots for Rs.2 Lacs each in the year 2010. It shows that he was able to save money.

Ends of justice would be met if monthly maintenance awarded to appellant no.2 i.e. Rs.6000/- is maintained and monthly maintenance of appellant no.1 is increased from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5000/- per month. The maintenance as enhanced in favour of appellant no.1 would be from the date directed to be paid as per the impugned decision.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.