CHANDANI Vs. QAFIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 10.4.1995 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 702/93, allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the revisionist No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month to the minor daughter Heena.

(2.) The grievance of the revisionists is that the learned Judge did not consider income of the Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. husband of the revisionist which according to her is Rs. 2500/- as he used to run more than one tailoring shops around the town. It appears from the judgment that the learned Judge has determined the monthly income of the husband as Rs. 900/- per month and accordingly passed the order of maintenance at the above rate.

(3.) Opposite Party No. 1 has appeared by filing a Vakalatnatna on 20.9.1995 but no counter affidavit has been filed until now. In the presence of learned Counsel for both the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing at this stage. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 has submitted that fixation of monthly income at the rate ofRs.900/- by the Judge Family Court, was not based on evidence. He has also submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 does not own tailoring shop but is working as a tailor. He has also submitted that the amount of maintenance is excessive but he is paying the same to his wife and daughter.