KANHAIYA LAL Vs. SAU SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent wife had applied for maintenance in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim. The application was opposed by the present applicant. Evidence was led and the trial Court granted maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 125/ - p.m. from the date of the order i.e. 6.7.1986. The trial Court granted maintenance considering the source of income of the husband from his salary, private work which he was undertaking on holidays and on the basis of agricultural income. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the wife approached the Sessions Court, Akola in revision. The revisional Court enhanced the quantum at the rate of Rs. 300/ - p.m. from the date of application i.e. 9.2.1983. Being aggrieved, the husband has approached this Court against the order of enhancement of the maintenance.

(2.) SHRI Haq, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, contended that it has come on record that the husband has to maintain his mother, his widowed sister and other members of his family. This aspect has not been considered by the revisional Court while enhancing the amount of maintenance. He further contended that the learned revisional Court did not take into consideration the facts proved on record. The learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the monthly income of the salary of the applicant at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - p.m. whereas it has been proved on record in the trial Court that he receives monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 985.65 p. But after deduction towards G.P.F., C.T.D. and Professional Tax, he receives Rs. 620.65 p. per month only. According to Shri Haq, the amount which the applicant receives actually was to be taken into consideration and not Rs. 1,000/ - which was considered as the monthly income of the applicant by the Sessions Court. His next contention is that it has not been proved on record that he is the exclusive owner in cultivation of the 5 acres of land sought to be owned by him on the basis of 7/12 extract placed on record vide Exhibit 19 and 20. A persual of both these documents shows different persons as owners although the name of the applicant is shown as cultivating it as an owner. On these grounds, it has been contended that the learned revisional Court was wrong in enhancing the quantum of maintenance payable to the respondent.

(3.) SHRI Kaptan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, urged that this Court sitting in revision, cannot re -appreciate the evidence and come to a different finding on the basis of the evidence on record.