AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Pasayat, J.—Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and Opp. Party.
Petitioner calls in question legality of the order dated 12.7.1994, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- to the petitioner from the date of order. Alternatively the Opp. Party was directed to pay lump sum of Rs. 12,500/- within six months.
Grievance of the petitioner in this revision application is that the aforesaid order is unreasoned, and even no basis has been indicated by the learned Judge, Family Court for fixing the quantum at Rs. 150/- when the claim was for Rs. 400/-.
While fixing the quantum of maintenance, the concerned Court is required to indicate the basis for fixing the quantum at a particular amount. The maximum amount is prescribed in the statute. There must be some reasonable basis for fixing the quantum. Main factor is the income of the person liable to pay. An unreasoned order is practically no order in the eye of law. In fixing the quantum the necessities to be provided to the claimant and the means of the Opp. Party are to be considered. It cannot be fixed on sum hypothesis or abstract consideration.
Section 125 is enacted only to save starving children, parents and wives. The object of the summary proceedings given in the Code for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and that object is achieved by directing provisions of lodging, food and clothing to the wife, the children, who are minor or the parents, as the case may be. The Magistrate while fixing the quantum has to strike a balance. He should not fix an amount which would enable the wife to live in luxury, and also impede any future reconciliation, and penuriousness.
In the case at hand, the direction for lump sum payment is not supported by any provision of the statute. The order is accordingly vacated. The learned Judge, Family Court, shall hear the matter afresh only on the question of quantum. The application is accordingly allowed.