NARESH KUMAR Vs. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -respondent has a grievance that the fixture of Rs.2800/- per month (Rs.1000/- for the respondent-wife and Rs.600/- each for the three children of the parties in her custody), out of the assessed monthly income of Rs.3000/- in the hands of the petitioner, is harsh inasmuch as it would leave only a sum of Rs.200/- with him for his maintenance for the entire month.

(2.) The impugned order came to be granted by the learned Trial Judge while allowing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-wife for the award of ad-interim maintenance. The plea, raised by her in support thereof, was that she has no means of sustenance for herself and her three school going children and that as against it, the petitioner-husband has monthly income of Rs.25,000/- from all sources.

(3.) In the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge noticed that neither party had placed on record any authentic proof with regard to their respective income. The learned Trial Judge noticed that the petitioner herein being an able bodied young man cannot escape liability to maintain his resource-less wife and minor children. His monthly income was assessed to be that of an unskilled labourer. It was in appreciation of the above fact that the impugned award of maintenance came about. Inspite of effecting of service, the respondent opted to refrain from entering appearance. The respondent is noticed on record to have been first served to appear before this Court on 7.10.2009. As none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, a Coordinate Bench (Sabina J.) adjourned the proceedings to 20.11.2009. Even on that date, the case was called out twice but none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and the matter came to be adjourned to today as well. None has appeared for the respondent today as well. I have heard Mr. Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have carefully gone through the file. Learned counsel is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the assessment of monthly income of the petitioner. His only grievance is that he has hardly been left with anything which could enable him to sustain himself and to also look after his aged paralysed mother.