IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18746 of 2011 Amit Kumar Versus Smt.Madhvi Prasad ----------- 04. 29.11.2011 I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosharvey on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Avinash Kumar on behalf of the respondent. (2) The husband has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No.194 of 2010 allowing the petition dated 14.01.2011 filed by the wife, respondent herein and directed the petitioner to pay ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.16,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition and a sum of Rs.20,000 as cost of litigation. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is also equally qualified and was employed prior to marriage and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance and moreover, the petitioners monthly income is Rs.25,000 only but the learned Court below illegally passed the impugned order. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which appears to be not reported and 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 96(Nilay Kant Mishra vs. Vibha Mishra). 2 (4) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that documentary evidences have been produced before the Court below and after perusal of the said documents, the learned Court below recorded a finding that after deduction, the petitioner is getting Rs.65,227 per month and, therefore, the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order and moreover, on the ground of equal qualification, the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be rejected. (5) From perusal of the decision relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that in that case, originally the wife was a lecturer. At the time of decision under Section 24 application, it was submitted on her behalf that she has been removed from the service. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that she was possessing sufficient experience and how such a lady can remain unemployed. High Court further observed that it really puts a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. In my opinion, this is not the requirement of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Admittedly, the wife is unemployed and according to the impugned order, the husband-petitioner is getting Rs.65,227 per month after 3 deduction. Whether only on the ground that the wife- respondent is equally qualified, therefore, no maintenance can be granted to her? In Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no distinction has been provided between well qualified wife and unqualified wife. (6) In the present case at our hand after passing of the impugned order instead of complying the order passed by the Court below, the petitioner filed Review application raising all these grounds which are being raised before this Court and after considering all these facts, the learned Court below by terms of order dated 02.09.2011 rejected the Review application. The certified copy of the said order has been produced by the respondent. (7) In the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2003(4) PLJR 523, a Division bench of this Court has held that plainly the petitioner, appellant is purchasing time in litigation. This is an ad interim maintenance. This Court is not going to permit the petitioner, appellant to enter into some sort of Panchayat to bargain on the maintenance which has been ordered. In that case, it appears that the trial court directed the husband to pay Rs.2,000 per month. The writ court dismissed the writ filed by the husband and the Division Bench also dismissed the appeal holding that regarding quantum of maintenance, no panchayati can be held by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. 4 (8) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considering pay slips filed by the parties found that monthly income of the husband-petitioner is Rs.65,227. In the case of Nilay Kant Mishra(supra), this Court considering various decisions of different High Courts directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.5,000 per month. It appears that the trial court had granted monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month. This Court also found that after deduction, the monthly salary of the petitioner was Rs.20,494 and, therefore, granted Rs.5,000 per month i.e. 1/4th of the monthly salary as such, modified the order passed by the trial court granting Rs.7,000 per month. (9) In view of my above discussion, it cannot be said that impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error or that the Court below passed the impugned order arbitrarily. In my opinion, generally either 1/5th or 1/4th of the total monthly income is granted as monthly maintenance and, therefore, the quantum fixed by the Court below is just and proper. In such circumstances, no interference can be made under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (10) In the result, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)