Ahed Ali vs Morjina Khatun

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

By this revision petition the petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Goalpara whereby the learned Court has enhanced the maintenance to the respondent-wife by its order dated 01.07.2017 in M.C.R Case No. 239/2015, from Rs. 700/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month. The respondent herein lodged the maintenance case No. 148 of 1997 before the Court u/s 125 Cr.PC praying for maintenance for herself and her minor children and the learned Court by its order dated 20.04.2002 after hearing both the parties awarded a maintenance @ Rs. 500/- to the respondent-wife and another Rs. 500/- each to three minor children. Subsequently on the prayer of respondent-wife such a maintenance amount was enhanced by its order dated 15.12.2008 wherein the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 700/- to the respondent-wife and same quantum to the minor children out of which one of the daughters got married. The maintenance that was awarded to the daughters who got married and the son who attained majority was cancelled by the Court and thus the respondent-wife used to get Rs. 700/- per month as a maintenance. The respondent-wife thereafter in the year 2017 filed another petition for enhancement of the same amount from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month as her husband used to earn Rs. 22,617/- per month being a service holder in a school whereas the respondent-wife has no source of income.

The present petitioner being the second party in the said case contested the same by filing a written statement that he has no such huge amount to pay to the respondent-wife, as sought for. It is stated that he being a Chowkidar has no such handsome salary and that apart he has second-wife with three children to be maintained and both the petitioner and his second-wife also suffered from various ailments and he will be retired from the service on 30.06.2016.

Both the parties examined witnesses in support of their contention.

The respondent-wife and her son examining themselves has submitted that the petitioner has salary of Rs. 22,000/- per month and that apart he has agricultural land from which he also use to earn Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month, whereas the respondent-wife has no source of income to maintain herself.

The present petitioner as DW1 examined himself and ascertained the same facts that has been pleaded in his written statement that he already retired and getting pension of Rs. 13,000/- per month and he has also second wife and children to be maintained. As regards the other landed property etc. he has stated that there is a garden of beetle nut, mango, coconut and bamboo etc. and he earned Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per year. He also received retirement benefits Rs. 6,50,000/- (approx) and he has not given any retirement benefit to his second-wife.

The learned trial Court on due consideration of pleadings and evidence on record found and hold that the respondent-wife is entitled to get maintenance at an enhanced amount. The maintenance of Rs. 700/- which was granted her from the year 2008 is not enough to meet the livelihood and accordingly the Court has enhanced maintenance from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month with direction to the petitioner to pay the maintenance from the date of order. Challenging the aforesaid order the present revision has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner who is now a retired person having limited income is unable to pay such maintenance to the respondent-wife. Further it has been submitted that the respondent-wife have three major sons living with her having income and her first son is working at Bengaluru and second son have a grocery shop and next son has a pan shop, whereas the petitioner is a retired person as a Grade-IV employee having limited income and also to maintain big family comprising three children and wife.

I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein admitted in his evidence that his pension is Rs. 13,000 per month. This Court directed to submit relevant documents to show the pensionary amount drawn as on date but same was not submitted before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is drawing pension about Rs. 17,000/- per month but same is also not supported by any document. On appreciation of the entire matter on record it can be seen that the respondent-wife is now residing with her major sons who has pan shops and income of the petitioner is now reduced to a great extent because of his retirement. He has also to maintain his own children from the second-wife. Even if assume his income to be Rs. 15,000/-, the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month will be on higher side.

Taking note of all above, the monthly maintenance is reduced to Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of order of the trial Court, with a direction to petitioner to pay the same, alongwith arrear before the trial court.