SUNITA MISHRA Vs. SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the revision itself is heard and decided finally by this order.

(2.) NON -applicant husband has filed a suit at Bilaspur seeking declaration Under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the effect that the marriage between them was a nullity. The applicant -wife filed an application praying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/~ per month together with Rs. 1000/ - as expense. The learned Judge, taking into consideration of facts and circumstances as available, granted Rs. 400/ - per month as maintenance and Rs. 800/ - as litigation expenses. It is this order which is impugned in the present civil revision.

(3.) THERE is a finding recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order itself that the non -applicant is employed as a teacher and receives Rs. 1625/ - p.m. as salary after all permissible deduction. There is also a finding that the applicant does not have any means of livelihood and at the present is living with her parents and depending on their support. Considering the present price structure and income of the non -applicant, demand for maintenance Rs. 500/ - p.m. does not appear to be unreasonable or unjustified. Learned Judge has not given any reason why he was not accepting the said claim. It is true that the learned Judge has the discretion in the matter but the discretion is judicious and has to be exercised on sound reasonings. In the instant case, the exercise of discretion being unrelatable to the earning of the non -applicant the same cannot be accepted as correct. The demand of the applicant for Rs. 500/ - p.m. must be held to be justified not only in the context of price structure today but also in the context of the earning of the non -applicant. The amount of maintenance to therefore increased from Rs. 400/ - to Rs. 500/ - p.m. Revision succeeds to that extent.