Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the modification application, the appellant has relied upon the payslip of June, 2012.

According to the salary slip of June, 2012, of the appellant, his basic salary is 62,700/­ only with special allowance of Rs. 14,469/­ and the VPF contribution is Rs. 45,771/­. Earlier, appellant was receiving HRA, which he is now not receiving and further, special allowance has been decreased from Rs. 41,486/­, as shown in the payslip of October, 2011, to Rs. 14,469/­, as shown in the payslip of June, 2012.

According to these payslips, earlier VPF contribution was Rs. 15,184/­ and now, it is Rs. 45,771/­, so, certainly, it has been increased more than the necessary amount as per rules. So, at the most, the learned Trial Court could have considered the basic salary, special allowance and reasonable VPF contribution, which was found in excess to Rs. 15,184/­ as earlier was being deducted and after other deductions of income tax etc. So, at the most, the salary of the appellant was coming less than Rs. one lac.

In the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain expenditure in Para­8P of the appeal, which have not been considered by the learned Trial Court at that time.

It is stated during the course of arguments that certain amount of maintenance has been paid during the proceedings in the learned Trial Court.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Court wrongly overestimated the salary of the appellant and simply believed the denial of the complainant. In the subsequent order dated 18/02/2013 also, even if the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that VPF contribution was increased drastically, then the same could be considered after deducting the necessary amount and the actual amount could have been considered i.e. net salary, which seems to be lower than the previous salary slip, hence, there was no occasion to dismiss the application. The appellant has stated during the course of arguments that he is ready to pay the maintain the child but the earnings of the complainant be also considered, while fixing the amount of maintenance. Details of expenditure of the minor child, who is stated to be five years, have not been produced before the Court at any time, although it is alleged that she is school going, however, the minor daughter is to be maintained by the appellant and also by the respondent, if she is earning, so, considering the above facts and circumstances, order regarding maintenance, as awarded by the learned Trial Court of Rs. 30,000/­ for the minor daughter is maintained. However, the part of the order dated 01/08/2012 is set aside regarding awarding of maintenance of Rs. 30,000/­ to the complainant and also the subsequent order dated 18/02/2013 is also set aside being illegal and improper and passed without proper consideration of the documents of the parties.