RANJANA KUMARI @ REETA Vs. RABINDRA KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the sole respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant, prior to the issuance of notice to the respondent in the matter, had confined the grievance in the present appeal only to the quantum of maintenance awarded to her by seeking enhancement of the same.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been granted a meager maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- only per month from the date of the order although earlier she had been getting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month whereas the respondent as per the latest salary statement made available to the Court by his superiors, is getting gross salary of Rs. 44,497/- which after deductions is still to the extent of Rs. 36,467/-. It is thus submitted that the appellant is entitled to a much higher amount of maintenance than what has been allowed by the learned Principal Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent may be getting a salary of Rs. 36,467/- after all deductions but the fact remains that his date of birth being 1.1.1957 as per the Pan Card he is already 57 and 1/2 years old and would be superannuating within next 2 and 1/2 years and thus there is no justification for any further increase in the maintenance.