MANOJ KUMAR NAIK Vs. SANGEETA NAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 22.12.2000 in Code of Civil Procedure No. 116/2000 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, on an application filed by Respondent wife under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, claiming maintenance.

(2.) THE factual scenario as narrated in the judgment assailed before us is as follows:

(3.) THE learned Judge, Family Court has fixed Rs. 2600/ -to pay the Respondent No. 1 per month. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has. however, argued with vehemence that such fixation of maintenance is not only excessive, exorbitant but also unworkable, inequitable and harsh inasmuch as there is evidence on record which would establish that the Appellant has been only receiving Rs. 3000/ - as take home salary. So far the legal obligation of the Appellant is maintain the Respondents, there could be hardly any dispute. It is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife as well as off springs. In this background, we will have to find out as to whether the amount assessed by the learned Judge. Family Court was arbitrary, excessive and inequitable or not. From the salary certificate, we found that he has been deriving the gross -income about Rs. 8000/ - per month out of which reasonable deduction should also be made. Notwithstanding such deduction the Appellant has to pay at least 1/5th of his income for maintenance to his wife.