Prem Pal vs State of U.P.& Anr.

R. K. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the revisionist. None appears for the opposite party No. 2. The impugned judgment and order passed by Family Judge, Bareilly in Case No. 767 of 1997 Smt. Premwati v. Prempal has been carefully perused. The argument of Mr. Shukla is that the revisionist has no permanent source of employment even as labourer so he cannot be expected to earn Rs. 3040/ per day. On this ground Mr. Shukla argues that the maintenance allowance at Rs. 350/ per month is on higher side and this Court should interfere in the same and reduce the maintenance allowance.

This Court after going through the impugned judgment and considering the market condition of these days does not feel that Rs. 3040/ per day wages of labourer which the Court below has taken for calculating the monthly income of the revisionist husband is on higher side. A healthy and laborious workman can get work permanently, therefore, the Court does not find substance in the argument of Mr. Shukla that the revisionist cannot be expected to get wages Rs. 3040/ per day. Moreover, the maintenance has to be fixed taking into account possible monthly income of the husband. Considering this aspect in mind the observation of the Court below that the husband can earn Rs. 3040 per day is fully justified.

The monthly maintenance allowed to the opposite partywife at the rate of Rs. 350 per month is in no way improper or unjust. The order does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality to justify interference by this Court. The revision petition does not disclose merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any stands discharged. Revision dismissed.