KAVITA GUPTA Vs. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, and the petitioner No. 2 is his son, aged about 9 years. The filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code'), before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, for grant of maintenance on the ground that they were unable so maintain themselves and that the respondent was having sufficient income, besides his residential house and bad neglected to maintain them. It was prayed that the petitioner No. 1 be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month and the petitioner No. 2 be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/ - per month. On receipt of the notice, the respondent contested the petition.

(2.) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties and hearing their learned Counsel, the learned Trial Court held that the respondent had neglected to maintain the petitioners and that his income from salary was Rs. 2,470/ - p.m., but that the petitioners had not given the particulars of their requirements. In this view of the matter, vide the impugned order dated 1st March, 1993, the learned Trial Court held the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 entitled to receive from the respondent maintenance at the rates of Rs. 300/ - and Rs. 200/ - respectively, with effect from the date of presentation of the petition under Section 125 of the Code. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition, with the prayer that the amount of maintenance be enhanced.

(3.) IT is not disputed before me that according to the finding of the learned Trial Court, which finding is based on the admission of the respondent himself, the respondent is drawing a salary of Rs. 2,470/ - per month from his office. It is also not disputed that the respondent has been residing in a house belonging to his father and has not to pay anything by way of rent for the said because house. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have been residing with the parents of the petitioner No. 1 and no amount by way of maintenance has ever been provided by the respondent to either of them. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 being wife and son respectively, of the respondent, are entitled to receive maintenance according to the status of the respondent, and it is also not in dispute that the petitioners No. 2 is of school -going age. It is obvious that the petitioners require money for their food and clothings etc. Besides this, the respondent No. 2 has also to be educated and some money is required therefor. Simply be cause the petitioners had not furnished the details of their requirements, the learned Trial Court could not have declined to grant adequate compensation to them. In my view, the maintenance granted by the learned Trial Court, is too inadequate, considering the income of the respondent and it is a fit case, in which, this Court should interfere in the matter. I am further of the view that taking into consideration the income of the respondent and his circumstances, it would be just and proper to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month to each of the petitioners.