RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the matrimonial proceedings, the learned Judge of the Trial Court difected the husband to pay 1/2 of his salary as maintenance pendente lite to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act ). The learned Counsel appearing for the husband in this revision submits that the rate of maintenance fixed is too high. The normal rate should have been 1/5 of the salary of the husband. Reliance is placed on Raghvendra Singh Chaudhary v. Seema Bai, 1988 M. P. L. J. 450, Radhikabai v. Sadhuram Awatrai 1969 M P L. j. 565 and Dharmichand v. Smt. Shobha Devi, AIR 1987 Raj. 159. The learned Counsel for the husband also submits that in fixing the rate of maintenance Court overlooked the relevant considerations that the husband has to maintain his aged parents and the wife has also some earning from bidi rolling done by her in the village.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the wife in reply submits that the right of maintenance has been fixed looking to the needs of the wife and children living with her. It is also submitted that there is no scope for interference in the order of the Trial Court in exercise of revisional power by this Court.

(3.) IN my opinion, no hard and fast rule can be made applicable to the question of fixing the rate of maintenance. The provision of Section 24 of the Act is that where one of the spouses has no independent income sufficient for his or her support and to meet necessary expenses of the proceedings, the other spouse having means can be directed to pay monthly maintenance pendente lite. The needs of the wife, source of her own earning, as also the needs of the husband and the members living with him, are all relevant considerations. There cannot be any hard and fast rule for directing payment of 1/5th or 1/3rd of the income of the husband if he it a salaried person (See AIR 1987 Raj. 159 ).