SMT. POUSHALI PAL Vs. SRI. GAUTAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the order dated 13th Sept., 200) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipur in Matrimonial Suit No. 9 of 1998 where under the learned Judge allowed the petition under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife and awarded; sum of Rs. 2,200.00 per month as alimony Pendente lite payable by the hus band-O.P. to the petitioner wife for maintenance of the wife as well as II; minor son and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 as litigation cost. It was also directed in this order that the above amount of alimony had to be pat by the husband to the wife-petitioner within the fifteenth day of every month It was further enjoined in the said order that the said amount of alimony pendente lite would be payable by the husband with effect from the date: order, that is, the month of Sept. 2000.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner-wife has preferred Hi Revisional Application challenging the said order of the Court below un-just, improper and erroneous and liable to be set aside and replaced by an order awarding maintenance for a higher sum to the extent of Rs. 6,000 all. The contention of the petitioner is that the Court below has ignored evidence adduced by the petitioner showing the high and substantial amount of salary drawn by the respondent-husband and has awarded such a meat sum for maintenance of herself and her minor son and the amount of maintenance ought to have been at least Rs. 6,000.00 to befit the standard s status of the petitioner and also the cost of living index rising day by day amount awarded by the Court below being insufficient, she has preferred the present Revisional Application for modifying the order and enhancing: amount to a reasonable extent and also for giving effect to the same from date of her filing of the application instead of the date of the order petitioner's case is that she is living in the family of her father along with child, but her old father who having retired and living on a small amount of pension has no financial capacity to provide with maintenance for them. In her evidence adduced before the Court below she has spelt out the heads of expenditure to be incurred for the maintenance and upbringing of her minor tool-going son and has adduced certain documentary evidence also showing the tuition fees payable for him to the school authority, the expenditure to be incurred on account of purchase of books for him or for his medical treatment at different times. She has also deposed giving the income of her husband as sell as the income of her father-in-law. She has stated that her father-in-law was an employee in the clerical grade of the defence service and has now been drawing pension. The husband-O.P. as the O.P. W 1 has also deposed giving his income and admitting that his father was a Govt, employee as alleged by the petitioner, but has said that his father was yet to receive the pensionary benefits by the time when he was being examined. It is his evidence that he has to give Rs. 4,000.00 to his parents for the purpose of running the expenditure of maintenance every month. His positive evidence also is that his gross salary is about Rs. 11,000.00. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has questioned the payment of such a large amount of his parents for their maintenance when admittedly his father was a permanent Govt. employee in the clerical grade and having retired is to get a certain amount by way of pension every month in addition to the other retrial benefits, it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in such a case the primary duty of the O.P. would be towards his wife and son and not o his parents, for simple reason that his father is not an unemployed person, but has a regular income which is supposed to be sufficient for enabling him to maintain himself (his father) and his wife (father's wife). According to the learned Advocate a sum of Rs. 2,200.00 cannot be sufficient in the present days regard being had to the increasing price index for the purpose of mainlining two heads one of whom a school-going child.

(3.) Admittedly the petitioner-wife has no independent source of income and she is living in the family of her father. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the O.P. that her father draws pension every month which is sufficient for the purpose of providing maintenance to the petitioner and her minor son. But this cannot be an acceptable proposition. Once married, a female Hindu has to be maintained by her husband and this is more so in case of her child who is to be maintained by its father. It does not legitimately lie in the mouth of the husband to say that his married wife is to be maintained by her old retired father with the money which he is getting by way of pension.