Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 210 (MP)

Pragati Bhalla v. Rajendra Kumar Bhalla

2018-02-22

ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, SHEEL NAGU

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. 1. Appellant has filed this first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the final order dated 28.9.2016 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 168-A/2015, which was filed under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for enhancement of the maintenance amount fixed by Family Court. The abovementioned Court has ordered against the present respondent to pay the maintenance to the present appellant at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month till her marriage or getting employment or starting earning whichever occurs earlier. Undisputedly appellant is daughter of respondent. 2. Undisputed facts are that the present appellant/original petitioner-Ku. Pragati Bhalla, daughter of respondent-Rajendra Kumar Bhalla, who is presently residing with her mother-Smt. Jyoti Bhalla at Gwalior. Respondent-Rajendra Kumar Bhalla is working as Jr. Engineer in D.R.M. Office of Western Railway at Ratlam, (M.P.) and previously an application filed by appellant's mother by order dated 1.8.2008 passed in Criminal MJC No. 229/2007, present respondent was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per months to the present appellant. 3. Present appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act on 15.5.2005, on pleadings that she is daughter of respondent and at that time she was studying in B.E. (Computer Science) in ITM University, Gwalior, whose one year fee, conveyance, coaching, books and other expenses are about Rs. 1,25,000 and as respondent is working as Jr. Engineer under Western Railway, drawing monthly pay at the rate 65,000 per month and petitioner is only sole daughter, hence respondent is competent to pay maintenance amount to the petitioner. In total Rs. 20,000 per month as a maintenance for the petitioner and her expenses of studying were claimed. 4. Present respondent in his pleadings filed before the family Court, despite above-mentioned admitted facts pleaded that petitioner is an educated and is herself earning about Rs. 20,000 per month from coaching and tuition work and is also receiving maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month from her father as ordered by this Court in case No. 168/2002. Respondent's monthly pay is not 65,000 per month, but is only Rs. 24,000 per month and he is paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month for residence and his mother is also dependent on him. 1,500 per month from her father as ordered by this Court in case No. 168/2002. Respondent's monthly pay is not 65,000 per month, but is only Rs. 24,000 per month and he is paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month for residence and his mother is also dependent on him. Respondent is also paying Rs. 6,000 per month to employees working at his residence. Respondent's both eyes have been operated and presently he is not having proper vision and hence, travels through auto and under this head he has to additionally pay Rs. 5,000 per month and he is also paying income tax. He is not competent to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month, hence, dismissal of petitioner's application was prayed. 5. The relating Family Court framed issues and recorded evidence of both the parties. Before Trial Court only appellant-Ku. Pragati Bhalla (PW-1) and respondent R.K. Bhalla (DW-1) were examined as witnesses. 6. The family Court placing reliance on Ex. P-4, which was respondent's pay slip, obtained by the appellant under Right to Information Act, held that in the month of August, 2015 respondent's monthly pay was Rs. 55,848 and, thereafter, recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission have been enforced, therefore, respondent's monthly income would have been increased and at that time, petitioner was studying in last Semester of B.E. (Computer Science) and, thereafter, completed her degree, but appellant is desirous to take admission in MBA Course and if she got admission, then she had to bear its fee, conveyance and other relating expenses, hence, respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month for maintenance, till her marriage or her obtaining service or starting earning, whichever happens earlier and it was also ordered that if in future petitioner take admission in MBA or any other course, then its fee and expenses shall be borne by the respondent. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it was proved that respondent was having monthly income of Rs. 55,848 and appellant is the only daughter of respondent and is presently having no income and desirous for further study, hence, it is prayed that the fixed maintenance decided by the Family Court be enhanced suitably. 8. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it was proved that respondent was having monthly income of Rs. 55,848 and appellant is the only daughter of respondent and is presently having no income and desirous for further study, hence, it is prayed that the fixed maintenance decided by the Family Court be enhanced suitably. 8. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that appellant's mother has filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for increasing her and her daughter's monthly maintenance previously granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and appellant has completed her B.E. (Computer Science) course and now she is capable to earn, hence, there is no question of any enhancement in maintenance amount fixed by Family Court as separately appellant is receiving maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500 monthly from her father under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 9. The point of consideration is that whether the appellant is entitled for any enhancement in monthly maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court. 10. Ku. Pragati Bhalla (PW-1) clearly deposed before the Family Court that she took admission in the year 2012 in B.E. (Computer Science) course which was of four years course and at the time of her deposition result of final semester was declared and though at that time her B.E. (Computer Science) course was nearly to be completed, but she had taken loan for her studies from UCO Bank and after completion of B.E. (Computer Science) course she has to pay the lone amount and she was taking coaching to take admission in MBA course and she is separately taking coaching for other subjects including languages, hence, she is not having any time for giving part time tuition or coaching to students for earning. She deposed that she is separately living since 2007 and now she is not desirous to live with her father at any cost. 11. Respondent-Rajendra Bhalla, (DW. 2) though deposed in his examination-in-chief that his monthly income is about Rs. 24,000 and his two increments have been withdrawn, consequently his pay is Rs. 22,880 per month and he has also to bear the expenses of his kitchen and paying pay of the employees of domestic work, but respondent did not file any documentary evidence. In his pay slip (Ex. P-4) the monthly income was shown as Rs. 24,000 and his two increments have been withdrawn, consequently his pay is Rs. 22,880 per month and he has also to bear the expenses of his kitchen and paying pay of the employees of domestic work, but respondent did not file any documentary evidence. In his pay slip (Ex. P-4) the monthly income was shown as Rs. 55,848 and the Family Court rightly observed that after enforcement of recommendation of Seventh Pay Commission, respondent's pay would have been increased. In the written submission filed on behalf of appellant, it has been clearly mentioned that the application filed by present appellant under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the relating Court being premature as dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2011, as at that time SLP filed by her mother was pending before the Apex Court. 12. We are of the opinion that in view of the documentary evidence produced by the appellant before the Family Court regarding monthly income of the respondent and looking to the present age and other relating necessities of the young life and as the appellant is desirous to take admission in MBA course and as she deposed that she is receiving coaching in other subjects also and she is the only child of the respondent and the other responsibilities of the respondents, an enhancement of Rs. 500 in addition to the amount of monthly maintenance determined by the Family Court would be appropriate and respondent appears capable to pay such enhanced maintenance amount. In our considered opinion, appellant's present appeal appears to be partly acceptable up to the above-mentioned extent. Consequently, appellant's appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that respondent will pay to the appellant Rs. 4,500 per month for her maintenance till her marriage or getting service or starting income whichever occurs earlier. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to the costs.