PATNA, India, Sept. 3 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 3:

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 366 of 2017, whereby learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to his respondent-wife towards her maintenance, payable from date of the order i.e. on 09.01.2020.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitionerhusband has preferred this Criminal Revision. However, his grievance is confined only to the quantum of maintenance. He is not disputing the marriage or reason to live separately, nor is he taking any other ground.

3. Hence, the question for consideration by this Court is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court in favour of the respondent-wife is legally justified.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the sole respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has assessed the income of the petitioner @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month without any cogent evidence in support of such claim. Admittedly, the Court himself has found that the petitioner has not filed any satisfactory evidence in support of the income of the petitioner-husband. Even income tax return has not been filed on record. Hence, the quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court is on higher side and not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. However, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the assessment of income of the petitioner who has pucca house and some land besides goldsmith shop. Admittedly, the petitioner is goldsmith making gold ornaments.

7. I considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record.

8. I find that there is no cogent proof filed in support of the income of the petitioner-husband and it seems that assessment of income of the petitioner is on higher side and consequently the quantum of maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent-wife is also on higher side.

9. In my considered view, monthly payment of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent-wife towards her maintenance would meet the ends of justice.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to this extent. However, other part of the impugned order will remain intact. Hence, the present petition is allowed in part.

11. Let L.C.R. be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith for enforcement of the order.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.