Md. Kalam vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in Maintenance Case No. 90 of 2012, by which Rs. 7,000/- has been directed to be paid per month as maintenance to the opposite parties no. 2 to 4, who are wife and sons of the petitioner respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no documentary evidence was produced before the Court while awarding maintenance and in the absence of the same, the quantum fixed should be interfered with. It was further submitted that the petitioner cannot afford to pay the amount.

Learned APP, from the impugned order itself pointed out that the petitioner has accepted that he works as mason and at today's rate, the monthly income would be not less than Rs. 25,000/- and thus, payment of Rs. 7,000/- to the wife and two sons is not only reasonable but in fact on the lower side. He submitted that the Court may enhance the maintenance on the basis of the admitted financial position of the petitioner as has come before the Court below during trial.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity, either in law or on facts. The same is well considered, based on sound reasoning, cogent materials and evidence before the Court. Further, the inferences drawn by the Court to arrive at the quantum is also sound, which needs no interference.

In view thereof, the application stands dismissed.