MANI Vs. ESTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is admitted that the revision petitioner (C. pw. 1)and the first respondent (Pw. 1) were married and respondents 2 to 4 were born to them, The spouses are working as teachers On the date of the petition, the children were studying in the VII, V and II standards respectively. The spouses' are living separately from 2-8-1976 onwards. The children are living with the mother. The wife did not claim maintenance for herself as she is employed and is earning income. On behalf of her three children a consolidated amount of Rs. 500/- per month was claimed. The court ordered only Rs. 150/- per month in all. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the quantum fixed by the trial court is excessive and that the learned Magistrate was in error in directing maintenance to be paid from the date of the petition and ought to have directed it to be paid from the date of the order.

(2.) IT is true that the mother of the three children is earning as a teacher. But, that has no relevance in fixing the quantum of maintenance payable by the father Father is a teacher. His gross emoluments are rs. 703 as is seen from Ext. D13 Salary certificate. According to Ext. D13, after deduction, he gets only Rs. 536. 78. Deductions include, provident fund subscription, L I. C. premium, a cut for provident loan and also deduction of rs. 25/- for Bishop's Old Age Home Ignoring the last deduction, his income could be assessed as Rs. 550/- per month. IT is in evidence that C. pw. 1 constructed a house by taking a loan from the L. I G H Scheme from the Government. He Has to repay the loan amount in annual instalments of Rs. 1082/-which will work out about Rs. 90/-per month He has no case that he has any other commitment except the discharge of a chitty loan.

(3.) THE other argument is that the learned Magistrate erred in directing the payment of maintenance from the date of the petition. What is at stake is maintenance payable for about an year and odd. THE learned magistrate has not given any reason for the direction that the order will take effect from the date of the petition. THE learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge any reason for directing that the order must take effect from the date of the order only.