AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the learned Magistrate awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the third respondent herein who is his wife, which is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the revision petition preferred by him. It is seen from the impugned order of the Courts below on the petition presented by the respondents, who are children and wife of the petitioner the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 300/- each to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the third respondent, who are the daughters and wife of the petitioner herein respectively. The trial Magistrate on consideration of the material placed has come to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. That order when it was challenged in the revision on the ground that the wife is an official working in Government Department and drawing salary has been negatived and revision came to be dismissed. The petitioner/husband is before this Court challenging only that portion of the order awarding Rs. 1,500/- per month to the third respondent/wife.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent-wife is a Government Official and drawing salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, as she is able to sustain herself from her income, the petitioner being poor tailor cannot be made to pay the amount as awarded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed in the revision by the learned Sessions Judge. It is seen that the respondents are the daughters and wife of the petitioner. They are three in number. The total amount awarded to these three persons by the learned Magistrate is Rs. 2,100/- per month for their maintenance. In these hard days even accepting that the wife is getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount awarded to the wife at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 300/- each to the daughters for their maintenance per month is too meager. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs. 300/- awarded to each of the daughters is on the lower side, which will not be sufficient for them to sustain in these hard days where the cost of living is rising day by day. Therefore, under these circumstances, despite the wife is a salaried person drawing salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month, in my view, the order of awarding of Rs. 5,000/- per month to her as maintenance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for any interference in this petition. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and it is dismissed.