Misc. Case No. 104 of 2021 · High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a teacher in Government Primary School, this is second marriage of both the spouses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded from the date of judgment which is exorbitant as revisionist has to take care of his own parents and his monthly salary is Rs.61,500/-, he is not having agricultural income. He further submitted that he has taken loan from State Bank of India and HDFC Bank and he is paying a sum of Rs.32,468/- as EMI of housing loan. Apart from that he is also paying Rs.4,000/- as monthly premium for LIC policy, and annual premium of LIC is Rs.48,000/- . Thus after deduction of various monthly installments of bank loan and LIC premium, a sum of Rs.25,032/- remains with him, if he pays Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party, then only Rs.10,332/- remains with him. It is difficult for him to maintain his livelihood as well as to bear necessary expenses of his parents for such a small amount.

4. Learned court below has only taken into consideration monthly salary of the applicant/revisionist, but the court below has not taken into consideration the monthly financial liabilities of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that respondent No.2 is an educated lady and she has completed B.A. and M.Ed. degree and she is a teacher who runs coaching center by giving tuition to many students, from which she earns monthly a handsome amount. She has already obtained Rs.13,75,000/- as maintenance from her earlier husband after getting divorced from him and said amount has been deposited by her in Bank Account, from which she earns monthly interest also. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2021 it was a dowry-less marriage. The attitude of respondent No.2 changed drastically after marriage towards parents of the revisionist. She would misbehave with them and she used to level false allegations against the revisionist that he is not able to maintain physical relation with her. She went back to her parental home on her own sweet will without any just cause and never came back to live with him, she is also an earning lady.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the learned court below has given a finding of fact that respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, she is living separately from her husband at her parental place on sufficient reasons. She is unable to maintain herself, as revisionist is a man of sufficient economic resources and he has neglected to maintain the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that impugned judgment and order is based on finding of fact recorded by the court below on the basis of evidence appearing on record. Leaned court below has taken a lenient approach while granting maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of application to date of judgment and even Rs.15,000/- which has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant is around 25% of the monthly salary of the revisionist.

6. Learned court below has observed in the impugned order that opposite party has stated that his monthly salary is Rs.61,000/-. He has stated in his statement before the court that his father owns 20 Bigha agricultural land, he is teacher by profession and the applicant has filed a case for Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act also. He has filed an affidavit in which he has shown his monthly salary as Rs.61,500/-. He has also stated that he invested Rs.4,000/- per month in his LIC policy, he has taken bank loan for a sum of Rs.3 lakh and he has taken loan of Rs.29,20,000/- in the joint name of himself and his mother Channo.

7. Learned court has awarded maintenance to the applicant as stated above. Taking into consideration the economic and social status of the parties, the revisionist has himself stated that applicant is a duly qualified lady, he failed to prove her employment or monthly income. Therefore, learned court below has rightly given a finding that applicant is not able to maintain herself and opposite party has neglected to maintain his wife.

8. Considering, the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and giving a thoughtful consideration on judgment under challenge and other evidence and material on record, I find no substantial error in finding of fact recorded by learned court below as the monthly income of the revisionist is admitted. He is stated to have three siblings and his father possesses agricultural land around 20 Bigha, on his own admission it is quite natural that he was earning some money from agricultural also. However, taking into consideration the financial liability incurred by the applicant/ revisionist and parental liabilities, I find it just and proper to reduce the amount of maintenance slightly.

9. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the quantum of maintenance awarded from the date of judgment is reduced from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance awarded from the date of filing of application to date o judgment is remain intact.

10. The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly. The other terms and conditions apply even in the impugned judgment and order shall be applicable. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a teacher in Government Primary School, this is second marriage of both the spouses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded from the date of judgment which is exorbitant as revisionist has to take care of his own parents and his monthly salary is Rs.61,500/-, he is not having agricultural income. He further submitted that he has taken loan from State Bank of India and HDFC Bank and he is paying a sum of Rs.32,468/- as EMI of housing loan. Apart from that he is also paying Rs.4,000/- as monthly premium for LIC policy, and annual premium of LIC is Rs.48,000/- . Thus after deduction of various monthly installments of bank loan and LIC premium, a sum of Rs.25,032/- remains with him, if he pays Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party, then only Rs.10,332/- remains with him. It is difficult for him to maintain his livelihood as well as to bear necessary expenses of his parents for such a small amount.

4. Learned court below has only taken into consideration monthly salary of the applicant/revisionist, but the court below has not taken into consideration the monthly financial liabilities of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that respondent No.2 is an educated lady and she has completed B.A. and M.Ed. degree and she is a teacher who runs coaching center by giving tuition to many students, from which she earns monthly a handsome amount. She has already obtained Rs.13,75,000/- as maintenance from her earlier husband after getting divorced from him and said amount has been deposited by her in Bank Account, from which she earns monthly interest also. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2021 it was a dowry-less marriage. The attitude of respondent No.2 changed drastically after marriage towards parents of the revisionist. She would misbehave with them and she used to level false allegations against the revisionist that he is not able to maintain physical relation with her. She went back to her parental home on her own sweet will without any just cause and never came back to live with him, she is also an earning lady.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the learned court below has given a finding of fact that respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, she is living separately from her husband at her parental place on sufficient reasons. She is unable to maintain herself, as revisionist is a man of sufficient economic resources and he has neglected to maintain the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that impugned judgment and order is based on finding of fact recorded by the court below on the basis of evidence appearing on record. Leaned court below has taken a lenient approach while granting maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of application to date of judgment and even Rs.15,000/- which has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant is around 25% of the monthly salary of the revisionist.

6. Learned court below has observed in the impugned order that opposite party has stated that his monthly salary is Rs.61,000/-. He has stated in his statement before the court that his father owns 20 Bigha agricultural land, he is teacher by profession and the applicant has filed a case for Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act also. He has filed an affidavit in which he has shown his monthly salary as Rs.61,500/-. He has also stated that he invested Rs.4,000/- per month in his LIC policy, he has taken bank loan for a sum of Rs.3 lakh and he has taken loan of Rs.29,20,000/- in the joint name of himself and his mother Channo.

7. Learned court has awarded maintenance to the applicant as stated above. Taking into consideration the economic and social status of the parties, the revisionist has himself stated that applicant is a duly qualified lady, he failed to prove her employment or monthly income. Therefore, learned court below has rightly given a finding that applicant is not able to maintain herself and opposite party has neglected to maintain his wife.

8. Considering, the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and giving a thoughtful consideration on judgment under challenge and other evidence and material on record, I find no substantial error in finding of fact recorded by learned court below as the monthly income of the revisionist is admitted. He is stated to have three siblings and his father possesses agricultural land around 20 Bigha, on his own admission it is quite natural that he was earning some money from agricultural also. However, taking into consideration the financial liability incurred by the applicant/ revisionist and parental liabilities, I find it just and proper to reduce the amount of maintenance slightly.

9. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the quantum of maintenance awarded from the date of judgment is reduced from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance awarded from the date of filing of application to date o judgment is remain intact.

10. The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly. The other terms and conditions apply even in the impugned judgment and order shall be applicable. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad