Cr.P.C. (Smt. Meghmala v. Jitendra Mohan), whereby court below has awarded maintenance to opposite party no

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is admitted that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the revisionist according to the Hind rites and rituals. The couple was blessed with a female child who was eleven years old at the time of filing of application for maintenance in the year, 2021 and she is receiving education in Touch Wood Hostel, Dehradun. Revisionist is posted as a Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Block Nahtaur, district-Bijnor. His gross salary in the month of October, 2022 Rs. 78,016/- and after deduction, his net salary was Rs. 65,311/-. He further submits that revisionist has been paying Rs. 5000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act and revisionist has produced the detail of the said interim maintenance in the paper-book of the present revision, which shows that he has paid total Rs. 3,35,000/- in the bank account of opposite party no. 2 in laying at her Bank of Baroda Account. He next submits that the the case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act has now been decided on 9.5.2023 and Rs. 7000/- has been awarded to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance and Rs. 3000/- as house rent on monthly basis, which has been directed to be paid by revisionist. He further submits that the revisionist has never shirked his liability to pay maintenance to his wife but the amount of maintenance fixed by the impugned judgement is exorbitant and it is difficult for him to pay from his limited salaried income, in as much as the revisionist has a daughter and he has to bear substantive amount towards education of her daughter. The ex parte decree of divorce has also been passed on the petition of revisionist and first appeal of opposite party no. 2 is pending before Uttarakhand High Court. The court below has not decided the question of maintenance in right perspective and fixed maintenance at highly excessive rate. The opposite party no. 2 is a highly qualified women. She has done her M. A., B.Ed and LL.B. and she is able to maintain herself but has not tried to enter into any trade or occupation. He has not paid any maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 after final disposal of the case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. He has filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites and the same was decreed ex parte but opposite party no. 2 never came back to live with him. With the above submissions, learned counsel for revisionist prayed for reduction of amount of maintenance awarded to opposite party no. 2 by the impugned judgement and order. Learned counsel for revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Versus Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200. In para 15 of the judgement Hon'ble apex Court placing reliance upon its previous judgement in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Versus Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, has held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the Court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement and order is just and proper and itself is around 25% of net salary of the revisionist. The salary certificate cited by learned counsel for revisionist is of month of October, 2022 and by now his salary must have been increased substantially after lapse of more than two years consequent upon annual increments and hike in D. A. (dearness allowance). The revisionist has procured an ex parte decree of divorce behind the back of opposite party no. 2 and he has entered into marital alliance with some other lady. Opposite party no. 2 has filed an appeal against the ex parte decree of divorce before Uttarakhand High Court. He next submits that the First Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution during the period of Covid 19 and restoration application filed by opposite party no. 2 is pending. He lastly submits that the father of the revisionist,who is a retired Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), appeared before the Court as witness and stated that he had come before the Court along with his grand daughter Janhavi, who stayed with him in the house belonging to him in Dehradun and this statement suggests that educational and necessary expenses of the daughter of revisionist are borne by her grandfather. Considering rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record and other relevant material, I find that no modification is desirable in the amount of maintenance awarded from the date of application to the date of judgement. However, maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of judgement requires some modification in order to keep it upto 25% of the net income of the revisionist. In view of the above, it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of judgement is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is further directed that the arrears of maintenance will be payable from the date of filing of application to January, 2025 in six monthly installments and first installment will be payable on

10.3.2025. Apart from above, the revisionist will keep on paying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- from February, 2025 onwards regularly. The revision is allowed in part. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 HR

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is admitted that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the revisionist according to the Hind rites and rituals. The couple was blessed with a female child who was eleven years old at the time of filing of application for maintenance in the year, 2021 and she is receiving education in Touch Wood Hostel, Dehradun. Revisionist is posted as a Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Block Nahtaur, district-Bijnor. His gross salary in the month of October, 2022 Rs. 78,016/- and after deduction, his net salary was Rs. 65,311/-. He further submits that revisionist has been paying Rs. 5000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act and revisionist has produced the detail of the said interim maintenance in the paper-book of the present revision, which shows that he has paid total Rs. 3,35,000/- in the bank account of opposite party no. 2 in laying at her Bank of Baroda Account. He next submits that the the case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act has now been decided on 9.5.2023 and Rs. 7000/- has been awarded to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance and Rs. 3000/- as house rent on monthly basis, which has been directed to be paid by revisionist. He further submits that the revisionist has never shirked his liability to pay maintenance to his wife but the amount of maintenance fixed by the impugned judgement is exorbitant and it is difficult for him to pay from his limited salaried income, in as much as the revisionist has a daughter and he has to bear substantive amount towards education of her daughter. The ex parte decree of divorce has also been passed on the petition of revisionist and first appeal of opposite party no. 2 is pending before Uttarakhand High Court. The court below has not decided the question of maintenance in right perspective and fixed maintenance at highly excessive rate. The opposite party no. 2 is a highly qualified women. She has done her M. A., B.Ed and LL.B. and she is able to maintain herself but has not tried to enter into any trade or occupation. He has not paid any maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 after final disposal of the case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. He has filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites and the same was decreed ex parte but opposite party no. 2 never came back to live with him. With the above submissions, learned counsel for revisionist prayed for reduction of amount of maintenance awarded to opposite party no. 2 by the impugned judgement and order. Learned counsel for revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Versus Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200. In para 15 of the judgement Hon'ble apex Court placing reliance upon its previous judgement in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar Versus Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, has held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the Court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgement and order is just and proper and itself is around 25% of net salary of the revisionist. The salary certificate cited by learned counsel for revisionist is of month of October, 2022 and by now his salary must have been increased substantially after lapse of more than two years consequent upon annual increments and hike in D. A. (dearness allowance). The revisionist has procured an ex parte decree of divorce behind the back of opposite party no. 2 and he has entered into marital alliance with some other lady. Opposite party no. 2 has filed an appeal against the ex parte decree of divorce before Uttarakhand High Court. He next submits that the First Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution during the period of Covid 19 and restoration application filed by opposite party no. 2 is pending. He lastly submits that the father of the revisionist,who is a retired Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), appeared before the Court as witness and stated that he had come before the Court along with his grand daughter Janhavi, who stayed with him in the house belonging to him in Dehradun and this statement suggests that educational and necessary expenses of the daughter of revisionist are borne by her grandfather. Considering rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record and other relevant material, I find that no modification is desirable in the amount of maintenance awarded from the date of application to the date of judgement. However, maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of judgement requires some modification in order to keep it upto 25% of the net income of the revisionist. In view of the above, it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of judgement is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is further directed that the arrears of maintenance will be payable from the date of filing of application to January, 2025 in six monthly installments and first installment will be payable on

10.3.2025. Apart from above, the revisionist will keep on paying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- from February, 2025 onwards regularly. The revision is allowed in part. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 HR