Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 768 (PAT)

Ranjana Kumari @ Reeta v. Rabindra Kumar Sinha

2014-07-11

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, RAVI RANJAN

body2014
ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, prior to the issuance of notice to the respondent in the matter, had confined the grievance in the present appeal only to the quantum of maintenance awarded to her by seeking enhancement of the same. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been granted a meager maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- only per month from the date of the order although earlier she had been getting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month whereas the respondent as per the latest salary statement made available to the Court by his superiors, is getting gross salary of Rs. 44,497/- which after deductions is still to the extent of Rs. 36,467/-. It is thus submitted that the appellant is entitled to a much higher amount of maintenance than what has been allowed by the learned Principal Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent may be getting a salary of Rs. 36,467/- after all deductions but the fact remains that his date of birth being 1.1.1957 as per the Pan Card he is already 57 and ½ years old and would be superannuating within next 2 and ½ years and thus there is no justification for any further increase in the maintenance. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the quantum of maintenance cannot be considered only on the basis of income of the respondent but also considering the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the Court below has come to a finding that the appellant is guilty of cruelty both on account of her conduct as also by making unfounded allegations that the respondent had killed his second wife as also that he was impotent. The fact has been disbelieved by the court below on the basis of cogent evidence including the evidence of the father of the second wife and the evidence of the doctor. It is further submitted that it has also been found that the appellant had repeatedly alleged that not only the respondent but all the members of the family were insane and need electric shock. 6. It is further submitted that it has also been found that the appellant had repeatedly alleged that not only the respondent but all the members of the family were insane and need electric shock. 6. It is contended that apart from cruelty the desertion has also been proved against the appellant and thus she is not entitled to any higher amount than Rs. 2000/- granted by the court below. 7. So far as the principles for fixing the quantum of maintenance is concerned, we are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court has not only to look into the income of the respondent while fixing the quantum of maintenance but also the conduct of the parties and other circumstances. It is further true that the allegations of cruelty and desertion had been proved against the appellant and on the said ground the decree of divorce has been awarded. The said circumstances, therefore, need to be kept in mind while fixing the quantum of maintenance. 8. It has come on the record on the basis of directions of this Court to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur that the present gross salary of the respondent is Rs. 44,497/- and after deduction of Rs. 5000/- as provident fund, Rs. 30/- as group insurance premium and Rs. 3000/- towards income tax, the net take home salary comes to Rs. 36,467/-. We are also conscious of the fact that the respondent shall superannuate from service on pension within next 2 and ½ years. Taking into account all aspects of the matter including the conduct of the parties, we are still of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance fixed by the court below ought to be enhanced to Rs. 4000/- only per month with effect from the month of July, 2014. We order accordingly. 9. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant complains that even the meager amount of maintenance fixed by the court below is not being paid regularly by the respondent and the appellant has to repeatedly approach the Court and run around, including paying the cost of lawyer, for recovering the same. 10. We order accordingly. 9. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant complains that even the meager amount of maintenance fixed by the court below is not being paid regularly by the respondent and the appellant has to repeatedly approach the Court and run around, including paying the cost of lawyer, for recovering the same. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the concerned authorities of the Government, at present the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, to ensure that the amount of maintenance fixed by us is deducted each month from the salary of the respondent and paid to the appellant in the Bank Account of the appellant as may be supplied by her to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.