BHANWAR LAL Vs. PREM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE only point urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned subordinate Court fell in error in arriving to this conclusion that the income of the applicant is about Rs. 800/ - (Rupees eight hundred) and that the petitioner is earning through the land occupied by him. The learned Counsel contended that the petitioner is getting Rs. 560/ - (Rupees Five Hundred Sixty) as Beldar in the Irrigation Department, Learned Counsel for the non -petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by the learned subordinate court is just and proper, and there is no infirmity in the said order. I have considered the points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused order of the subordinate courts.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid circumstances, it can, how ever, be said that the petitioner is earning Rs. 560/ - per month, So looking to the earnings of the petitioner, it will be just and proper to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs. 250/ - to Rs. 200/ - which will be apportioned among the non -petitioner and her daughter in equal shares i.e. each of them will get Rs. 100/ - as maintenance.