RAJNIKANT GOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. USHABEN RAJNIKANT PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The husband-petitioner has not produced any evidence of the closing of his cycle shop as well as his pay which he is receiving from the factory. The wife has stated his income of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- from the shop and in addition to that, Rs. 5000/- per month as pay. If, we go by these figures, income of the husband-petitioner is of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 17,000/-per month. The wife-respondent has filed the affidavit in respect of the income of the husband-petitioner. The petitioner is a person who is in possession of the best evidence of his income and he felt contended by making mere denial and as such income as what the wife has stated has to be accepted. Learned Trial Court has not given out how it reached to the figure of Rs. 1000/- a sum to be awarded as maintenance each to the wife and son. In the facts of this case, the Trial Court should have recorded reasons not to accept that figure of income of the husband given out by the wife. The way and manner in which this matter is decided by the court below shows that, this woman and child have been considered to be chattel or as if the court grants charity to them. The court has to record definite findings on the income of the husband-petitioner and then to arrive at the reasonable sum to be awarded to the wife and son as maintenance. In these days of high prices of essential commodities, a reasonable sum has to be awarded to the wife and child towards interim maintenance. It is not only a formality to pass the order for grant of interim maintenance. The wife has to provision food, clothing, education of boy, medical expenses and residential accommodation, etc. If, we go by these requirements which are dire necessities of the life, the amount of Rs. 1000/- per month awarded each to wife and child seems to be towards lower side.

(3.) The wife has been granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month by the Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code under the order dated 21-4-1997. Rs. 300/- per month has also been awarded for the son. Thereafter, on "the application of the wife, under the order dated 18-9-1999 this amount has been enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. This order has been passed after the order impugned in this civil revision application. I have gone through this order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and therefrom find that neither of the counsel who is appearing for the parties brought to the notice of the Court of this impugned order, the maintenance cannot be granted under all the provisions available for grant thereof to the wife and son. The maintenance may be granted only where the wife is not in a position to maintain herself. While granting the maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the order passed for maintenance under any of these enactments earlier, is to be taken into consideration by the Court. In view of the facts of this case, fault if any is there, it lies with both the parties. But, the Court cannot ignore these subsequent developments which have been taken place.