Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 985 (RAJ)

Beena @ Shyamlata v. Pukhraj Singh

2005-04-04

AJAY RASTOGI, S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Under the order dated 29.04.2003 in Case No.54/2001, impugned in this appeal, the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur directed the respondent husband to pay monthly a sum of Rs.1500/-to the appellant No.1, the wife of the respondent, and Rs.500/-to the appellant No.2, their minor son. The learned Family Court has further ordered that if the appellants are getting any sum as maintenance under the Court’s order in any other proceedings, that is to be given set off from this amount. This appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court for herself and for her son. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal. 3. Before us the respondent husband has filed his pay slip for the month of January, 2005; as per the pay slip, his basic pay is Rs.3,200/-dearness allowance pay is Rs.1,600/-, dearness allowance is Rs.496/-, house rent allowance is Rs.720/-and CCA is Rs.150/-, thus to total monthly salary comes to Rs.6,166/-; therefrom the department has made the deduction of Rs.300/-under the GPF contribution, Rs.150/-for SI contribution, Rs.50/-under the RPMF contribution, Rs.385/-is deducted for the LIC monthly premium and the amount of Rs.103/-was deducted for Tsunami Relief Fund. The learned Counsel for the respondent husband has given out that the deduction made of Rs.103/-under the head of Tsunami Relief Fund was only one time deduction. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants has led much emphasis on the deduction of Rs.385/-made under the head of LIC premium. It is true that deduction under the head of LIC premium is not compulsory or statutory deduction. It is the employee’s own contribution but we cannot oblivious of the fact that LIC policy is taken by the employee for social security and thus deduction of Rs.350/-towards the monthly premium of the LIC policy from the salary, is not unreasonable. Thus, the monthly take-home salary of the respondent husband, excluding the deduction of Rs.103/-towards the Tsunami Relief Fund, comes to Rs.5,281/-. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants produced on the record of the appeal the documentary evidence to show the expenses, which the appellant No.1 is incurring on the education of the appellant No.2; the appellant No.2 is studying in the New Modern Public School, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants produced on the record of the appeal the documentary evidence to show the expenses, which the appellant No.1 is incurring on the education of the appellant No.2; the appellant No.2 is studying in the New Modern Public School, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur. From the receipt No.1896, dated 11.01.2005 of the fees and other school expenses of the appellant No.2, we find that his monthly tuition fees is of Rs.300/-; in addition thereto, we cannot ignore other expenses being incurred under the heads of admission fees, annual fees (may be one time only), term fees (half yearly), development fees (may be one time only), Games and Medical Fees, Students welfare fees and examination fees. The total amount paid for one-year study for this boy comes to Rs.5,950/-and in round figure it comes Rs.500/- per month. The expenses do not end here; the appellant No.1 has to purchase the books, notebooks, uniform etc. and she has to meet out other expenses on his education. Under the head of education itself , in our opinion, the appellant No.1 would have been incurring the amount of rupees seven to eight hundred per month; that apart, she has also to incur the expenses on maintenance of the appellant No.2. 6. In the facts of this case the amount of Rs.500/-per month awarded as maintenance in favour of the appellant No.2 by the learned Family Court is towards the lower side. 7. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the amount of Rs.1,000/-per month is just and reasonable sum to be awarded in favour of the appellant No.2, which is to be paid to the appellant No.1 by the respondent husband. 8. As regards to the amount of Rs.1,500/-ordered by the learned Family Court to be paid to the appellant No.1 by the respondent husband, looking to the high price index of essential commodities and other day-to-day expenses, now-a-days though it appears towards the lower side, but looking to the fact that the respondent husband is only getting the monthly salary of Rs.5,281/-, the increase in the amount of maintenance awarded to the appellant No.1 by the learned Family Court is not called for in this appeal. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this appeal partly succeeds in the terms aforesaid. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this appeal partly succeeds in the terms aforesaid. The appellant No.2 shall be entitled for the increased amount of maintenance from 20.02.2001; the arrears are to be paid by the respondent husband within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of .