Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/husband questioning the correctness of the quantum of maintenance ordered by the Judge, Family Court, Puducherry, in M.C. No. 6 of 2007, dated 13.03.2008. By the said order, the Court below allowed the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioners/wife & son by directing the respondent/husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month to the first petitioner/wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the second petitioner/son, from the date of petition and the respondent is further directed to continue to pay the maintenance until further orders, on or before 5th of every English Calendar month and also to pay the arrears.

6. From the facts and circumstances enumerated above, it is seen that the petitioner/husband and the respondents are living separately from the year 1977. The only point raised in this revision, though there was evidence in the form of pay slip and it has been rightly pointed out by the officials, it cannot be totally construed as the basis for fixing the income. The petitioner also has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent/ wife has larger income, as claimed by him. Further more, it is seen that the first respondent/wife during the cross-examination has admitted before the Lower Court that she is working in a private concern, but, is earning only a meagre salary, therefore, now the question of correctness of the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Lower Court has to be decided by this Court. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the Court below, taking into consideration the evidence available on record has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month to the first petitioner/wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the second petitioner/son, a total sum of Rs.5,500/- to both the respondents, this according to the petitioner/husband is very high. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ wife would contend that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Lower Court is correct and it needs no interference at the hands of this Court.