SAVITA AGGARWAL Vs. R C AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts of this case are that the respondent-husband is employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Doordarshan Kendra, carrying a salary of Rs. 4125/- per month. The respondent was married as far back as 7th December, 1984. The petitioner was granted Rs. 300/-per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent sought divorce by filing petition dated 6-6-1989, in which the trial court affirmed the maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 300/- granted by the criminal court and granted Rs. 1500/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the maintenance pendente lite is totally disproportionate to the income and status of the respondent to whom the petitioner was married. It is not disputed that apart from salary, the respondent owns immovable property, in the form of plots at Jalandhar and Chandigarh, though they are not yielding any income.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent has two daughters to maintain and his carry home salary is only Rs. 2300/-per month and the plots are not yielding any income and order of the criminal court was affirmed. There is no error of jurisdiction. No interference is called for. There is. no dispute that there is no fixed formula for determining maintenance pendente lite but tests propounded by various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, to fixed the maintenance pendente lite. Keeping in view the status of the parties, the income of the husband and the standard of life to which parties are used to. The fixation of maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be taken note of for assessing the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 but the same cannot be the sole basis as under the Criminal Procedure Code, maximum maintenance which can be allowed is Rs. 500/ -. So the criminal Courts grant maintenance keeping in view the maximum limit of maintenance which can be granted in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be treated as bar for granting higher amount.

(3.) THE learned counsel has further attempted to show that respondent is paying Rs. 1600/- as G. P. Fund, Rs. 120/- towards Group Insurance Scheme, Rs. 300/- as income-tax and Rs. 200/towards scooter loan. In my view these cuts cannot be taken note of while assessing the maintenance pendente lite. If entire salary is deposited as contributions towards General Provident Fund of Group Insurance Scheme, etc. , that will not deprive the petitioner of her right to get pendente lite. The maintenance of Rs. 300/-per month, to the wife of an Assistant Engineer Doordarshan Kendra, is simply ridiculous by law and in total negation of the realities of life in these days. Amount of Rs. 300/- is too low for a respectable living as a wife of an Assistant Engineer.