Sarla Devi vs Om Parkash Madan, Inspector, Central Excise And Customs Collector, Delhi

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The appellant wife impugns the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby she has been granted Rs. 200/- per month as alimony/maintence u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The primary challenge is on the ground of unreasonableness of the quantum of maintenance keeping in view the income of the respondent husband which has been deter-mind at Rs. 925/- per month.

It is not in dispute that prior to her marriage with the respondent on June, 20, 1976 and subsequent to the decree of divorce she succeeded in getting, she is living with her father in village Shankhol, District Rohtak. She is stated besides having completed a Drawing Diploma Course. The said Diploma is granted as a result of the training in embroidery, sewing and stiching etc.

The sole submission of Mr. Hooda, learned counsel for the appellant, as already indicated, is that she should have been held entitled to at least 1/3rd of the monthly income of the husband, i.e. 1/3rd of Rs. 925/- per month. Though I find that the lower Court has not given any elaborate reasons for determining the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month, yet it does not appear to have missed the point when it discusses that there is no arithmetical formula which enjoins upon a Court to award a particular percentage of husband''s income as maintenance and that it has to be granted keeping in view of the conduct of the parties and applicant''s income besides other circumstances of the case. It is as a result of this approach that the trial Court has awarded the maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I find that no case has been made out to interfere with the lower Court''s order.

The monthly income of the respondent husband is not in dispute. As already pointed out, the appellant subsequent to the divorce is staying with her parents in village Sankhol where she can reasonably be presumed to have free board and lodging. Besides this, she has also some capacity to earn for herself, being trained in embroidery, sewing and sttiching. Thus the fixation of the quantum of her maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month does not appear to be unreasonable keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

For the reasons recorded above this appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.