Smt Jyoti @APPELLANT@Hash Harendra Panwar

Petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge

order dated 26th of March 2016, passed by Judge, Family Court, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned Court below’), whereby learned Court below has

declined prayer of the first petitioner for maintenance to her and has quantified maintenance qua second petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to be paid in equal proportion by first petitioner-wife and respondent-husband.

The facts necessary and germane to the matter are that first petitioner and respondent entered into matrimony on 15th of May 2002 at Suratgarh and out of the said wedlock two offsprings born including second petitioner. Another son, born out of the wedlock, named Vishal died during pendency of the application, and therefore, his name was deleted. In the application for maintenance, it is, inter alia, averred by the petitioners that they are unable to maintain themselves as they have no source of livelihood. In the application, it is also averred that respondent is working as

Wardboy with a hospital at Nokha and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The application is contested by respondent-husband wherein it is specifically averred that petitioner No.1 is self-reliant as she is earning handsomely. The rival parties appeared in the witness box to tender their respective evidence and thereafter the learned Court below by the impugned order completely declined the prayer of first petitioner but quantified maintenance for second petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per mensem with equal distribution of Rs.1,500/- to be paid by both the spouses.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishal Sharma, has vehemently argued that learned trial Court has seriously erred in appreciation of evidence while declining prayer of first petitioner. Mr. Sharma has further contended that learned Court below has committed grave and serious error of law and fact in apportioning 50% of the maintenance amount to be paid by first petitioner and the remaining 50% by respondent-husband. Mr.

Sharma submits that being father, respondent is morally, socially and legally obliged to maintain his minor son, and therefore, entire liability of maintenance is to be fastened on the respondent. Learned counsel has also argued that in the backdrop of present inflationary trend, the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, quantified by learned Court below, is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced to meet the

ends of justice.

Per contra, Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by

learned Court below.

I have considered the submissions made at Bar, perused impugned order as well as other materials available on record.

During the course of arguments, the rival parties deliberated to settle the issue amicably and some consensus is also arrived at, but the same has not been fructified perpetually.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that law mandates that if a minor child is unable to maintain, then the minor child irrespective of its status as legitimate or illegitimate, can claim maintenance from father or mother. It is true that learned Court below has found that petitioner No.1 can maintain herself, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance, but then, there is no finding worth the name that her monthly income is sufficient to maintain petitioner No.2 also.

While refraining to make any comment about finding of learned Court below regarding entitlement of petitioner No.1 for maintenance, I feel persuaded to uphold the order passed by learned trial Court to that extent. However, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account present inflationary trends, in my opinion, the amount of maintenance quantified by learned Court below for petitioner

No.2 deserves adequate enhancement by fastening the entire liability on the respondent-husband.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed in part, the impugned order passed by learned Court below is modified and the amount of maintenance payable to petitioner No.2 is redetermined and quantified to the tune of Rs.3,750/- per mensem. The respondent is also directed to pay the entire amount of maintenance and the impugned order fastening liability to pay 50% amount of maintenance against the first petitioner is hereby

annulled. It is also ordered that the entire amount of maintenance/arrears shall be paid by respondent-husband from the date of application.

The requisite arrears in this behalf be paid by respondent within a period of two months from this order and the enhanced maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.3,750/- per month shall be payable regularly.