YAKUBALI AHMED SAGIR Vs. RASIDABANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is the husband against whom the opponent -wife filed an application praying for maintenance. The trial Court as per its judgment and order dated March 20, 1980 directed that the applicant -husband should pay an amount of Rs. 50/ - per month as and by way of maintenance to the opponent -wife. It was alleged by the opponent -wife that their marriage took place on August 5, 1975. That out of the wedlock, two male children were born, Mahmad was born on July 18, 1977 and Siddiq was born on November 18, 1978. It was alleged that she was being ill -treated and was driven away sometime in April, 1978. According to her, the applicant -husband had given divorce by registered post on May 29, 1979. The opponent -wife filed an application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 13 of 1979 on 11 -7 -1979 and prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month. On evidence the trial court found that the applicant - husband was serving as teacher and his net pay packet was Rs. 417 -60/ - P. per month. It is not disputed that this amount is exclusive of provident fund and other deductions made from the gross salary of the petitioner. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the learned Magistrate directed the applicant -husband to pay Rs. 50/ - per month as and by way of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, the opponent -wife preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 176 of 1980 in the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The revision application was head by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 18. The opponent -wife had prayed that the amount of maintenance be enhanced. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the income of the applicant -husband was at least Rs. 417/ - per month as teacher and this amount was the net income after the deduction of provident fund and other such deductions. The learned Addl. City Sessions Judge held that the amount of maintenance should be increased to Rs. 100/ - per month and has directed that the applicant -husband should pay at the enhanced rate of Rs. 100/ - per month from the date of application, i.e. March 20, 1980. The aforesaid order has been passed on September, 24, 1980. The applicant -husband has preferred the present revision application and challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the lower Courts.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that the applicant is serving as a teacher in a primary school. In 1980 his salary was Rs. 417/ - net. It is also conceded that his total pay packet would be around Rs. 550/ - per month in these days. Since the year 1980, the salaries of all the employees have been increased periodically, at least twice or thrice. This is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken. In this view of the matter, it can reasonably be inferred and concluded that at present the total income of the applicant would be at least around Rs. 700/ - to Rs. 800/ - per month. The applicant has of course other liability also. He is required to maintain two minor children who are with him. He is also required to maintain his widowed aunt. But at the same time the amount of Rs. 100/ - per month directed to be paid as and by way of maintenance to the opponent -wife cannot in any way said to he excessive. There is no reason why the order passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge be interfered with. Counsel for the applicant prays that this Court High granted stay against the payment of enhanced amount of Rs. 50/ - per month as per order dated December 3, 1980. Counsel for applicant states that he has fallen in arrears of the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month. He submits that it would be very difficult for the applicant to pay the entire amount of arrears at a time. Hence he prays that suitable directions be given for payment of the amount of arrears and the same be spread over for a period of three to four years. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, time for payment of arrears as prayed for cannot be granted. But at the same time some latitude has got to be given.

(3.) IN the result the revision application is rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire amount of arrears by monthly instalment of Rs. 150/ - from October, 1985, that is to say, he shall pay the amount of Rs. 100/ - per month as and by way of maintenance plus Rs. 150/ - per month towards the arrears of maintenance, i.e. in all Rs. 250/ - per month, till the entire arrears of maintenance is wiped out. Thereafter, he shall pay Rs. 100/ - per month regularly as and by way of maintenance. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the revision application is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. Revision Application rejected.