Neelam Rani vs Suresh Kumar

Harbans Singh. J.

The petitioners were allowed maintenance by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, at the rate of 350/ per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 150/ per month to petitioner No. 2, vide his order dated 171987. Mi. P. K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, modified the order in revision filed by Suresh Kumar respondent and reduced the maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 1 to Rs. 200/ per month and to Rs. 50/ per month to petitioner No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned trial Court had awarded maintenance, taking the income of the respondent to be Rs. 1500/ per month. It is further in evidence that two brothers of the respondent are earning hands, one is a Charted Accountant and the other is a Lineman. It is also conceded that one of his brothers is residing at Ludhiana and earning about 2000/ per month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while reducing the amount of maintenance, has been influenced by the fact that the respondent has to maintain his mother and four other members of the family. i.e., his brothers. He has not taken note of the fact that two brothers of the respondent are gainfully employed, one being a Chartered Accountant and the other being a Lineman, and that the maintenance of the mother is not the sole responsibility of the respondent. It is also not clear how the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent is earning Rs. 800/ per month. It was admitted by the respondent in earlier litigation that his income is Rs. 1500/ per month and a copy of his statement was rendered in evidence in this case and was admitted as Exhibit A2. No objection was taken to the admission of the copy of the statement of the respondent.

The trial Court had given a very well reasoned judgment. The income of the respondent is proved to be. Rs. 1500/ as he had never disowned the admission made by him qua his income in the earlier litigation and the revisional Court, i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, was not justified in discarding the admission in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and the grounds taken by the Additional Sessions Judge as to the responsibility of the respondent to maintain his mother and other four members of the family are again not according to the evidence on the file. As mentioned earlier, two of the respondent''s brothers are employed, having decent income. In such a situation, to reduce the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and child is not warranted by law or facts of the case. The Additional Sessions Judge was patently in error in reducing the amount of maintenance. He mentioned that the child is not of school going age. It is conceded at the Bar that her age is 4 or 5 years. The argument that petitioner No. 2 is not of school going age again is not tenable.

Taking all the circumstances, of the case into consideration, I hold that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside. He had reduced the amount of maintenance granted to the petitioners, without taking care of the law applicable to the facts of the case. It is ordered that Neelam Rani petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/ per month and Varsha Rani petitioner No. 2 shall be entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/ per month as ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, vide this ordered dated 171987 and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 16101987, reducing the same is set aside.

JUDGMENT accordingly.