Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Sri Rajesh Ch. Saha vs Smt. Tandrima Saha on 25 April, 2025 cites

Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020

Petitioner, no doubt, is a government employee who draws a gross salary of Rs.52,525/- per month as per the salary certificate for January, 2025 which could be only slightly less at the time of passing of the impugned judgment. After statutory deductions of Rs.18,008/-, he draws a net salary of Rs.34,517/-. He has not filed any affidavit containing statement of assets and liabilities as required in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another (supra). The award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month to the wife and Rs.6000/- per month to the minor daughter as monthly maintenance cannot be said to be exorbitant or without any basis. Petitioner is an able bodied person, a government employee and has enough Page 5 of 6 sources of income. Therefore, the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.13000/- per month in total is well within the capacity of the petitioner to pay to enable the wife and the minor daughter to sustain themselves in a manner in which the wife was accustomed while staying in the matrimonial home. The learned Court has also examined the evidence adduced by the wife in the form of three witnesses including herself and two witnesses produced by the OP/petitioner herein. The learned Family Court has also found sufficient grounds for the wife to have stayed away from the matrimonial home on account of physical and mental torture which led to filing of a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Jatrapur Police Station. As such, this Court is satisfied that the learned Family Court has, after due consideration of the materials and evidence placed by the parties, rightly awarded a maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the wife and Rs.6000/- per month to the minor daughter effective from the date of application of maintenance. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the quantum of maintenance awarded in favour of the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 139 - Cited by 1507 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan on 6 April, 2015

However, during course of the submission today, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the salary certificate of the petitioner for the month of January, 2025 issued by the Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bishramganj, Sepahijala which reflects that his gross salary is Rs.52,525/-, and after statutory deductions of GPF, Group Insurance and P/Tax totaling Rs.18,008/-, the net payable amount is Rs.34,517/-. Learned counsel for the respondents also points out that learned Family Court has taken note at para 24 of the impugned judgment that despite number of opportunities granted, the opposite party/petitioner herein did not file any affidavit of assets and liabilities. He simply made a written objection that after deduction of Page 3 of 6 Rs.28,500/- from his gross salary, he gets Rs.14,499/- only per month which is not correct. Learned Family Court has also referred to several decisions of the Apex Court such as Rajnesh v. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 541 - D Misra - Full Document
1