CHANDRIKABEN CHHANALAL PATEL Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA CHANDILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the original applicant who filed an application for maintenance in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 15), Ahmedabad. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence and after hearing the parties granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 170/ - per month from the date of application i. e. December 26, 1984 and also granted Rs. 50/ - by way of costs. The trial Court accordingly directed the opponent to make the payment as stated above. The aforesaid judgment was delivered on January 15, 1985.

(2.) THE petitioner -wife felt aggrieved by the inadequacy of the maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court and hence preferred this Revision Application praying that the amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court is abnormally inadequate and the amount should be enhanced further.

(3.) THE opponent -husband is serving as Assistant Engineer in P.W.D. of the State of Gujarat. It has come in evidence that the salary of the opponent was between Rs. 1,300/ - to Rs. 1,400/ - and the amount of Rs. 200/ - was being deducted therefrom towards P.F. etc. It was also pointed out before the learned Magistrate that a Hindu Marriage Petition was filed by the opponent praying for divorce of the marriage between the parties. Therein the petitioner -wife had filed application for interim maintenance and the Court bearing Hindu Marriage Petition had ordered opponent husband to pay an amount of Rs. 150 as and by way of alimony. The trial Court did not believe the version of the opponent -husband that the petitioner was able to maintain herself. The trial Court has not given any reason whatsoever as to why the amount of Rs. 170/ - was being fixed as and by way of maintenance. It appears that the trial Court was influenced by the circumstance that an amount of Rs. 150/ - per month was fixed by the Civil Court as interim alimony in Hindu Marriage Petition. Be it noted that this Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the opponent -husband for claiming divorce, has now been withdrawn by the opponent. The Counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copy of the withdrawal purshis dated January 21, 1985 filed by the opponent. Thereon an endorsement appears to have been made by the Counsel for the petitioner -wife objecting to the withdrawal on the ground that no amount of alimony whatsoever had been paid to the wife or deposited in the Court. However, it is clear that the petition has been allowed to be unconditionally withdrawn by the learned Assistant Judge, as per his order, dated January 21, 1985. The purshis is ordered to be taken on record. In this view of the matter the order of interim alimony passed by the learned Assistant Judge in Hindu Marriage Petition, has no relevance whatsoever. While fixing the amount of maintenance is proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code the order that may be passed by the Civil Court will have definite relevance. But the interim orders passed by the Civil Court in the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act or in other matrimonial proceedings, cannot be taken as the sole basis for fixing the amount of maintenance. The Court may take that circumstance into consideration but there cannot be the sole criteria for fixation of the maintenance amount.